Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DEVON RIVER AUTHORITY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Prince of Wales' Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified]

Read the Third time and passed.

St. ANDREW'S, HOVE, CHURCHYARD BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

UNITED REFORMED CHURCH BILL [Lords]

WHITLEY BAY PIER (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Students (Tax Threshold)

Mr. Winterton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will raise at an early date the tax threshold for the earned income of students in full-time education.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): The tax threshold for students is the same as for other taxpayers and my right hon. Friend has no proposals to give them more favourable treatment.

Mr. Winterton: While thanking my hon. Friend for that rather predictable answer, may I urge him to accept this desirable way of encouraging full-time

students to be less financially dependent on their parents? Will he seriously consider reviewing this tax threshold to meet rising costs and at the same time to give recognition to the important contribution which parents make at this time in the training of young persons?

Mr. Higgins: I appreciate the points made by my hon. Friend and I remind him that two considerations must be borne in mind. On the one hand we have the child income limit which affects a parent's entitlement to child allowance. On the other hand we have the student's own tax threshold. The view of my right hon. Friend is that the present arrangements are equitable, taking account of the various factors involved.

European Economic Community

Mr. Dixon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the base used for calculating the United Kingdom's contribution in value-added tax to the European budget will be the same as in other countries of the Common Market.

Mr. Higgins: Any contribution to the EEC budget derived from the value-added tax would be related to a uniform tax base. Such a base does not yet exist. The United Kingdom's contribution to the EEC budget up to 1980 is in any case the subject of transitional arrangements set out in Articles 129 to 132 of the Treaty of Accession.

Mr. Dixon: Does it follow from that answer that although we in this country will be able to decide the rate of VAT, we shall not, in effect, be able to decide the base of VAT?

Mr. Higgins: This matter will of course be discussed in the Community. I do not anticipate that a decision on the harmonised base will be taken immediately and I cannot forecast a timetable on the subject. However, as I say, there will be full consultation on this point.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that all the countries of the EEC levy VAT on food whereas it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government so far to exclude food? How can we have a common and uniform base for VAT if the basis of calculation is manifestly different between the EEC and this country?

Mr. Higgins: As I have sought to make clear, it will be a question of reaching agreement on what the harmonised base should be.

Mr. Deakins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to have completed his study of the implications of the European Economic Community decision to raise farm prices for 1972–73.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I have nothing to add to the very full answer which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture gave on 11th April to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis).—[Vol. 834, c. 166–9.]

Mr. Deakins: Will the study, if and when it takes place—that is not certain—include an assessment of the effect on our balance of payments following the increase in the size of Community budget and our share of it consequent upon these price rises?

Mr. Jenkin: As my right hon. Friend said, we must take the interaction of the relative movements of world and Community prices. As he told the House on 11th April, the combined effect will be to reduce the estimates of the cost of food importants that were given in last year's White Paper.

Balance of Payments

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the latest balance of payments situation.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): The underlying balance of payments situation remains sound and I have little to add to what my right hon. Friend said in his Budget Statement about future prospects. The March trade figures were distorted by the effects of the coal strike and certain other special factors.

Mr. Dalyell: Have the effects of the coal strike been quantified?

Mr. Jenkin: It is too soon to make a quantitative estimate, but there is no doubt that the strike had a considerable distorting effect.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does my hon. Friend agree that one aspect of the

balance of payments situation which might cause concern is the question of repayment of the Labour Government's debts due to the IMF this summer? May we have an assurance that the Government will not yield to American pressure further to dilute the reserves with unconvertible dollars and that, if need be, we will prefer to defer payment than to yield to such pressure?

Mr. Jenkin: I appreciate the point which my hon. Friend makes but I do not think I can go further than my right hon. Friend in his Budget Statement.

Mr. Cant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there will be a serious deterioration in the balance of payments position this year as a consequence of our pricing ourselves out of the market because the Government are stupidly insisting on adopting policies which are causing prices to rise—policies on rents and rates, the premature introduction of VAT, and so on?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—[Interruption.]—in that there has been some rise in our price competitiveness over the last two years. If this goes on at a rapid rate it must, of course, have an effect on our export performance. However, I am entitled to point out that we have had considerable success in slowing down the rate of internal price rises. They are now rising at half the rate they were a year ago. Furthermore, we have made substantial cuts in taxation and these have helped to hold down prices. We now look for some response from the trade unions.

Overseas Investment

Mr. Rost: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now consider a further relaxation in restrictions on overseas investment, particularly portfolio investment in the non-sterling area, in view of the strength of sterling, the reduction of overseas debt, the rebuilding of gold and dollar reserves and the balance of payments surplus.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I have nothing to add to what was said on these subjects by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement on 21st March.—[Vol. 833, c. 1350–1.]

Mr. Rost: Does my hon. Friend agree that now is the time to consider relaxing


further the restrictions on overseas investment, particularly the 25 per cent. surrender rule on investment in dollar stocks? Invisible earnings could be substantially increased by encouraging more portfolio investment in the dollar area and so cashing in on the profits that are to be made in overseas investment. If we are to prepare—[Hon. Members: "Too long".]—for Britain to give the financial leadership to the Common Market in London we should surely be considering this move now.

Mr. Jenkin: The invisibles have of course an enormously important part to play in the current balance and their contribution this year, as in the past, will be of great significance. On the question of the relaxation of the rules on overseas investment, my right hon. Friend had to have regard to the priorities and his first priority was to make changes in the direct investment field. I think that was the right answer.

Mr. Brian Walden: Before the Chief Secretary too enthusiastically accepts what his hon. Friend has put to him, will he bear in mind that given the present state of British industry we could do with a considerable degree of that investment here at home?

Mr. Jenkin: I think it is also equally true to point out that there are areas of investment for which there is no parallel in this country. It is important, in order to secure raw materials in export markets, that some investment should take place overseas.

£ Sterling (Purchasing Power)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current purchasing power of the £ sterling as compared with June, 1970.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. John Nott): Taking the internal purchasing power of the £ as100p in mid-June, 1970, its value in mid-March, 1972, based on changes in the Consumer Price Index and adjusted by the General Retail Price Index, is estimated at 88½p. This does not include any cut in prices between mid-March and the present time resulting from the Budget.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the Minister also answering the following Questions?
No. 11 MR. CARTER: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the value of the £ sterling now compared to 18th June, 1970.
No. 12 MR. KAUFMAN: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the purchasing power of the £ sterling now, taking it as 100p on 18th June, 1970.

Mr. Nott: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I meant to say that with permission I would answer Questions Nos. 5, 11 and 12 together.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Skinner.

Mr. Kaufman: I think the Minister has given a wrong answer. Before we get on, should he not reconsider his answer and give the correct statistic?

Mr. Skinner: What about that then? Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Can we take it that the Chancellor had these figures, whatever they may be, in the forefront of his mind when he spoke to the Conservative Political Centre last week, and does the Minister of State realise, even if the Chancellor does not, that all that the railwaymen are guilty of is an attempt to try to restore their purchasing power to what it was at June, 1970, because it has been denuded as a result of the Government's actions?

Mr. Nott: The railway claim is not a matter for me, and while there is a prospect of negotiations being resumed I do not think it would be helpful for me to comment on this point.

Mr. Carter: Does the Minister accept that Britain's wage rates last year rose at a lower rate than in any other country in Europe except France? This demonstrates the extreme moderation of contemporary wage claims when set against the enormous rate of inflation which the hon. Gentleman's answer indicates.

Mr. Nott: It is also true that real personal disposable incomes have risen at an annual rate of about 3 per cent. since the Government came to power compared to 2 per cent. during the whole period when the Labour Government where in office.

Mr. Redmond: Would my hon. Friend agree that we had considerable inflation for the period immediately following the


term of office of the last Labour Government? Did not precisely the same thing happen in 1951 when they ran from office. Does not inflation follow a period of Socialist Government as sure as night follows day, and do not the Tories always get it right?

Mr. Nott: I thank my hon. Friend for that. Prices are now rising at about 5½ per cent. a year. In the three months leading up to the last General Election when the Labour Party was in office they were rising at the rate of 8 per cent., so we are making very great progress.

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had a Question down——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member rose and made an intervention, and it is fully within my discretion whether I call him or not.

Mr. Kaufman: rose——

Mr. Barnett: Surely, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend rose to a point of order and not to ask a supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member made an intervention, and if he makes an intervention it is for me to decide whether I call him again.

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw your attention to the fact, because I thought it was important for the House since the Minister was answering a number of linked Questions—[Interruption.]—that it was not possible for hon. Members, including myself, to put valid supplementary questions when the Minister had given an inaccurate answer to a Question. Therefore, I was in no way seeking to give up my possible right to ask a supplementary question. I was trying to point out that it was not possible for hon. Members to put valid supplementary questions if the Minister was giving an inaccurate answer which did not bear any relation to previous answers to this series of Questions. I respectfully submit, therefore, that the right of an hon. Member to ask a supplementary question is being abrogated if he rises to put a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must try to help the Chair in this instance.

Mr. William Hamilton: The Chair must try to help us.

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the hon. Member say anything about a point of order when he originally rose. [Hon. Members: "Yes, he did."] I did not hear him say so, but it is for me to decide. I am under constant pressure to get on with Question Time and it was getting very much like a debate. I therefore exercised my discretion. I now call Mr. David Mitchell to ask Question No. 6.

Mr. David Mitchell: rose——

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I very clearly said—and if you did not hear it I regret it—that I was rising to a point of order. All my hon. Friends will bear me out. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I shall seek to raise this whole matter on a point of order at the end of Questions.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful for that. Mr. David Mitchell.

Capital Gains Tax

Mr. David Mitchell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider publishing a Green Paper on alternative forms of capital gains tax.

Mr. Nott: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Mitchell: Would not my hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot have that said. I ask the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) to withdraw from the Chamber. [Hon. Members: "Shame."] I cannot have an hon. Member describing a decision of the Chair as intolerable.

The hon. Member withdrew.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Healey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I well understand that in disallowing a supplementary question by my hon. Friend to a Question which he had put on the Order Paper it may have been your intention to accelerate the pace at which questions were taken. I think you will accept, however, that your action on this occasion has led to the loss of five minutes of Question Time. I wonder whether on reflection, you will not accept that, my hon. Friend having


risen to a point of order, he would in normal circumstances have been allowed to put a supplementary question on the Question he had on the Order Paper, which you yourself pointed out that the Minister, without referring to it, was answering.

Mr. Speaker: I quite realise that whenever the Chair tries to accelerate the rate of answering Questions the usual result is that it takes longer, because the House will not accept the discipline of being short. What I usually try to do if I have to curtail a question is to work in the hon. Gentleman concerned on a similar Question later, which I would try to do on this occasion. What I cannot allow, and I do not think any occupant of the Chair could allow, is the Chair's conduct to be described as intolerable.

Mr. Healey: I am grateful for what you have said, Mr. Speaker. But I think if you have read the Order Paper, you will accept there is no similar later Question on which you could call my hon. Friend. If the HANSARD reporter can confirm that my hon. Friend rose on a point of order, would not you accept that it was most unusual for Mr. Speaker not to call him for a supplementary question to a Question he has on the Order Paper, and the presence of which on the Order Paper and its relevance to the Minister's answer was pointed out by yourself?

Mr. Speaker: The Chair is very ready to admit that it may have made a mistake. It would be impossible for even the Chair to command perfection. I thought that in all the circumstances the Question had been sufficiently discussed. It was developing into a debate, and no hon. Member has a prescriptive right to ask a supplementary question. In making that statement I am speaking in accordance with the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure which was accepted by the House. If we are to have more Questions asked and answered, it must be accepted that an hon. Member does not have any prescriptive or other right automatically to be called for a supplementary question.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On another point of order. When this incident happened, Mr. Speaker, you told the House that you never heard my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) rise to a point of order. May

I point out, with great respect, that you could not have heard that he was saying to a Conservative Member on the benches opposite "Intolerable. I am going to put down a Motion of censure", for which you have now made him withdraw. That remark was not addressed to the Chair. Had you heard the first comment and what followed, with respect, perhaps you would not have asked my hon. Friend to withdraw. He was making the comment with regard to hon. Members opposite that he would put down a Motion of censure.

Mr. Speaker: I am prepared to disregard the incident and allow the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) to come back, provided we can get on. Mr. Mitchell, to ask his supplementary question.

Mr. Mitchell: Would not my hon. Friend agree that capital gains tax has also become a tax on inflation and paper gains and as such has fulfilled the fears expressed in 1965 by not only my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister but also my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when he proposed an Amendment regarding tapering the tax?

Mr. Nott: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue our examination of the problem, but I remind him that the pernicious effects of inflation are not confined to capital gains tax: I have my hon. Friend's point in mind, and we are continuing to consider it.

Value-added Tax

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent value-added tax added to fees received by solicitors and barristers will be passed on to the litigants; what he estimates to receive from such a tax; and how much he estimates this will increase the annual costs of the Legal Aid Fund.

Mr. Higgins: As to the first part of the Question, this is a matter for the solicitors and barristers concerned. No estimate of receipts is available. As to the final part of the Question, about £1·75 million a year.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I say "Thank you" and ask the Minister whether he is aware that it is pretty obvious to all, including barristers, that


the tax will be passed on? Even the Lord Chancellor and the barristers, who get very high fees and high returns—which the Government never condemn though they condemn the railwaymen—admit that it will be passed on. Does not that shove up costs, which the Government are supposed to be trying to keep down? The Lord Chancellor said that the cost of the judiciary is getting very high. Will not the Minister do something to reduce rather than increase costs?

Mr. Higgins: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's thanks. I do not wish to poach on the preserve of my right hon. and noble Friend. It does not necessarily follow that the cost of litigation will be increased by the full amount of VAT. There will be some saving of SET, at least in solicitors' offices. Legal aid charges will continue to be related to means, any additional cost through VAT being borne by the Legal Aid Fund.

Mr. William Price: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect he expects the introduction of value-added tax to have on Exchequer revenue from the sale of beer.

Mr. Higgins: This will depend on the extent to which the revenue duty on beer may be altered when VAT is introduced, which in turn will depend on the total revenue required from beer in 1973–74.

Mr. Price: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the licensed trade already carries a formidable level of taxation and that there must be a limit to what even beer will stand? Will he give an assurance that the introduction of value-added tax will not mean yet another burden on a very long-suffering section of the public?

Mr. Higgins: As my right hon. Friend made clear in his Budget speech, in deciding the extent to which he can make any reduction to avoid an increase in the total level of taxation on the item concerned he must take account of the economic circumstances of the time. I cannot anticipate his Budget Statement next year in this respect.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would not my hon. Friend consider that a suitable solution would be the reclassification of beer as

food, notably the reclassification of Guiness as food, which indubitably it is?

Mr. Higgins: I regret to say that I could not go along with my hon. Friend's suggestion. As to the definition problem, there are revenue questions that must be taken into account.

Dr. Gilbert: As the Chancellor's stated object is to bring about simplification of the tax system, why does he insist on taxing beer twice? Why not tax it through the VAT system and forget about Excise duties. Why create extra administrative costs which are bound to raise the cost and eventually the price of beer?

Mr. Higgins: I do not think that would be a more advantageous solution. No doubt we can discuss the matter in detail on the Finance Bill.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will propose that educational aids and equipment be exempt from payment of value-added tax.

Mr. Winterton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will exempt from the proposed value-added tax all education materials and equipment used in any educational establishment both in the maintained and private sectors.

Mr. Higgins: My right hon. Friend's proposals for exemption from value-added tax are contained in the Finance Bill and there will be opportunity to discuss them during the debates on the Bill.

Mr. Mitchell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that because of shortage of money many local education authorities are already cutting back very severely on the amount of equipment supplied to schools? Does not the imposition of VAT make the position a jolly sight worse?

Mr. Higgins: It does no such thing. If the hon. Gentleman looks at Clause 15 of the Finance Bill, he will see that there are proposals for local authorities to be refunded VAT paid on purchases relating to their non-business activities, including education.

Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be very wrong for private schools to be penalised in any


way, and that students in full-time education without a grant could also be hit very badly by the tax? Will he give an assurance that these items will not be taxed under VAT?

Mr. Higgins: No, Sir. The specific proposals are set out in the Bill. The private sector of education will benefit from the general reliefs for such items as fuel, books and new construction, which are to be zero-rated, and rents and insurance, which are to be exempt. Those schools which are charities will be able to benefit from the concessions on estate duty and capital gains tax which are being proposed.

Premium Dollar Currency Pool

Mr. Dykes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now reconsider the abolition of the 25 per cent. surrender in force for transactions in the premium dollar currency pool.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I have nothing to add to the answer given to my hon. Friend's Question on this subject on 25th January, 1972.—[Vol. 829, c. 360.]

Mr. Dykes: I appreciate that it is still close to the Budget, but does not my hon. Friend agree that that is a very disappointing reply and that many people had hoped that by now what is really an anachronistic hangover from the Labour Government's financial crises could now be scrapped? Voluntary restraint restrictions have already been eased, and Continental investors in all the member countries of the EEC can invest in this country without exchange control impediments. Will my hon. Friend look at the matter again?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend keeps this and other matters under regular review. While the balance of payments is strong, he felt it right to take account of the prospects over the next couple of years. The priorities in relaxing the controls on overseas investment must be direct investment.

Purchase Tax

Mr. Stallard: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from retailers since making his proposal to reduce purchase tax on some goods.

Mr. Higgins: A very few representations have been received about losses incurred by retailers on stocks which have borne tax at the higher pre-Budget rates. In general the reductions have been welcomed as a stimulus to trade which should enable retailers to recoup any immediate losses through increased business in future.

Mr. Stallard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many small retailers, particularly pharmacists and electrical supply retailers, have suffered considerable loss as a result of the method chosen to reimburse them following the last reduction of purchase tax? Is he further aware that some of these losses have amounted to £1,500 to £2,000? Will he consider an alternative method—for instance, reimbursement based on invoices over the six or seven weeks previous to the Budget? Would this not have been a better method of reimbursing the tax?

Mr. Higgins: I must confess that I am not clear as to what the hon. Gentleman means by reimbursing retailers for the tax. There is always a problem with purchase tax when there is a cut in the rate although, as my right hon. Friend pointed out in his Budget Statement, it is not a difficulty which arose very much under the last Government. The problem was examined in great depth by the Hutton Committee in 1952 and it concluded that there should not be any special arrangements in circumstances of this kind.

Dr. Stuttaford: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual revenue in purchase tax from the sale of children's shoes in 1971.

Mr. Nott: Young children's shoes are not subject to purchase tax. Older children may wear a size of shoe which bears tax but it is not possible to estimate how much of the annual purchase tax revenue this represents.

Dr. Stuttaford: Would my hon. Friend agree that it appears that this country's finances have struggled along without taxing babies, and children's shoes in the past? Would he further agree that this tax would add 50p to the price of a pair of shoes for an eight-year-old which would encourage mothers to by second hand shoes, cheaper shoes or ill-fitting shoes, thereby hazarding the health of


their children? Would he agree that this tax will bring into disrepute the VAT system because it would be a prescription charge on the health of children's feet? [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]

Mr. Nott: With respect, some of my hon. Friend's comments are a little exaggerated. [Hon. Members: "No."] I cannot comment on his estimates of the amount this would add to the price of children's shoes. These points were borne in mind when VAT was designed and we have to look at the tax as a whole. Bearing in mind the abolition of SET and purchase tax there are no grounds for suggesting that value-added tax will be regressive when looked at as a whole.

Dr. Summerskill: Would the hon. Gentleman perhaps take some medical advice—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]—and would he not look so amused at the fact that ill-fitting shoes can cause lifelong deformity? Would he not agree that the days should have gone when the Government turn back the clock and encourage the wearing of ill-fitting shoes? In the long run, if we cannot appeal to him on humanitarian grounds, will he recognise that economically it will be a long-term burden on the National Health Service to cope with these deformities?

Mr. Nott: I would be happy to take medical advice from the hon. Lady at any time but these matters can be fully debated when we come to the relevant Clauses of the Bill and I suggest that we wait until then.

Mrs. Kellet-Bowman: When my hon. Friend described the remarks of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) as exaggerated, had he read the report called "Crippling the Young" relating to the deformities caused to children's feet by ill-fitting footwear?

Mr. Nott: I have not read that report but I would be delighted to do so if my hon. Friend would send it to me.

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman has said frequently that these matters can be discussed when we come to consider the Finance Bill. Does he recall that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement during the debate last week suggesting that the Government would

not be prepared to consider any further zero-rating because they regard the composition of the value-added tax as at present devised to be unchangeable? Can he assure the House that the Government will listen to arguments put by Members on both sides on this and other matters and will be prepared, if the weight of the argument lies in that direction, to consider zero rates for commodities such as children's shoes and clothes which at present the Government propose to tax at 10 per cent.?

Mr. Nott: I heard my right hon. Friend's remarks in the debate and I do not think he put them in the way the right hon. Gentleman suggests. When we come to this matter on the Finance Bill there will be full opportunities for debating it and we will certainly listen to all the arguments.

Safety Equipment

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for removing purchase tax or value-added tax from safety equipment.

Mr. Higgins: While the position has been carefully reviewed from time to time, it has proved impossible to remove purchase tax from all articles which contribute to safety. There will, of course, be an opportunity to discuss details of the application of value-added tax during the debates on the Finance Bill.

Mr. Huckfield: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that most pieces of safety equipment were carrying no purchase tax advantages, despite the pleadings of the British Safety Council and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents? Will he take the opportunity, when introducing the new tax, to give positive encouragement through the fiscal system to increased industrial safety?

Mr. Higgins: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's deep interest in this subject. When a purchase tax order on this subject came up for consideration after I joined the Treasury, I looked into the matter very carefully but tremendous difficulty has been found in acting on the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman. However, trade and industry generally will be in a better position under the value-added tax than under


purchase tax as regards items of safety equipment they buy in the course of business. Under purchase tax any charge had to be borne by the firm whereas, under the value-added tax, the items will be eligible for credit under the normal credit mechanism.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Without giving any undertaking will my hon. Friend consider, during the passage of the Finance Bill, proposals to exempt the equipment and boats of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution?

Mr. Higgins: I would not wish to anticipate debates on the value-added tax during the Finance Bill.

Dr. Gilbert: Nevertheless there are pieces of safety equipment which are free of purchase tax and which will now incur taxation for the first time. Since Governments in the past have always been under pressure to subsidise them, is it not a retrograde step now to tax them? Will the hon. Gentleman refer to his previous answers on this matter and say that we can expect some sensible concessions during the Finance Bill?

Mr. Higgins: The lesson is really to be drawn from the time when purchase tax was introduced. Then, a number of piecemeal exemptions were made which resulted in a great many anomalies. As I have constantly stressed, the value-added tax is intended to be a comprehensive tax, but a high percentage of the items to which the hon. Gentleman refers which are subject to purchase tax will be in a better position under the value-added tax because of the credit mechanism.

Decimal Coinage

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he remains satisfied with the working of the decimal coinage system since its introduction; and whether he has reached any conclusions in his consideration of possible changes in the numbers, sizes, values and metal contents of the coins.

Mr. Nott: Yes. As already announced, the future of the 2½p coin will come under consideration early next year and we shall keep under review the demand for an intermediate denomination between the 10 and 50 new pence coins.

Mr. Chapman: As it costs twice as much to mint £1 worth of 2 new pence

pieces as compared with £1 worth of old sixpences, and there is public demand to keep the old sixpenny coin, will my hon. Friend consider keeping the old sixpence as the new 2½ new pence piece and phasing out the 2 new pence piece rather than vice versa, which is the intention?

Mr. Nott: My hon. Friend knows from the answer given to him on 18th April that it is cheaper to mint the 2½p coin than the 2p coin, but the paramount factor is public demand for various denominations. At present there are almost twice as many 2p coins in circulation as 2½p coins.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will my hon. Friend celebrate his appointment to the Treasury by reintroducing a 50p note, which would lighten our pockets?

Mr. Nott: My hon. Friend knows from previous answers that the note only has a life of a few months and that one of the principal reasons for introducing the 50p coin is that it has a life of many years. I do not think, therefore, that his suggestion is acceptable.

Hotels (Fire Precautions)

Mr. Adley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek powers to ensure that small hotels which are compelled to undertake structural work under the Fire Precautions Act are enabled to offset the cost of this work against tax, rather than have to consider the work as capital improvement.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: No, Sir. I do not think I should be justified in singling out this particular form of expenditure for special treatment.

Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that this will cause not only concern but anxiety to many small hotel keepers, particularly those who run their own hotels, very often with their wives, working long hours, and who find it difficult to borrow money in the first place and will now be faced with enormous burdens under the Fire Precautions Act, which, of course, we all support? In the context of employment in the regions, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this situation could have a serious effect and that many small hotels could be forced to close unless he gives them some form of assistance?

Mr. Jenkin: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said and have read the letter he wrote earlier this month on the matter. He may be exaggerating the problem. He may be leaving out of account the great difficulties there would be if there were any departure from the basic rule that if people invite members of the public on to their premises they are responsible for making them safe. There is no difference here between these cases and the problem of making food shops safe, with proper levels of hygiene, and so on, for example.

Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that there really is a problem here, particularly in relation to the tourist industry? Will he consult the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that when hotels and boarding houses are registering, the fullest information is available about financing facilities in order to speed up these very desirable improvements?

Mr. Jenkin: I undertake to get in touch with my right hon. Friends, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but of course the question of safety and fire precautions is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that whilst it is the responsibility of the hotel owner to make his hotel safe for his customers, it is part of his "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred" expenditure. For this purpose it should be allowed for tax. It would encourage safety. Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his answer?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is perhaps confusing two matters—the question of whether expenditure is an allowable revenue expense on the ruling he mentioned, and the question of whether it is entitled to capital allowance. There is no question that it is allowable as revenue expenses. Capital expenditure such as expenditure on plant, sprinklers, fire alarm systems and fire-fighting equipment will probably qualify for the new 100 per cent. first year allowance. As far as the expenditure represents capital improvement to non-industrial premises, there are at present no allowances under the tax system.

Foodstuffs and Soft Drinks

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue he has estimated receiving in 1972–73 from purchase tax on foodstuffs and soft drinks; and how much selective employment tax revenue from the same foodstuffs and soft drinks in 1972–73, both including all distributive processes thereon.

Mr. Higgins: The 1972–73 revenue from purchase tax on those foodstuffs and soft drinks which a reliable to purchase tax is estimated to be of the order of £150 million. No corresponding estimate can be made for SET.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that the transposition from purchase tax and SET on the items referred to value-added tax will undoubtedly result in a greater revenue being derived from these items and therefore an increase in retail prices? Is that a desirable policy?

Mr. Higgins: I am somewhat puzzled by my hon. Friend's statement. As for those items which are charged at the 18 per cent. rate of purchase tax as against the 10 per cent. VAT rate, allowing as far as one can for SET, the situations is not that which he has described, so that the situation of which he complains would not arise.

Purchasing Power (Wales)

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the additional purchasing power available in Wales as a result of his Budget measures.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Wales will gain a full share of the additional purchasing power injected into the economy in 1972–73 as a result of the £1,200 million tax cuts in the Budget. Most of the 900,000 Welsh wage and salary earners will find their income increased by £1 per week as a result of the increase in the personal allowances; and the cuts in purchase tax will further raise real purchasing power by reducing prices.

Sir A. Meyer: Would my hon. Friend agree that this is a factor which, coupled with the extensive pool of unused capacity in Wales, means that there is now a


unique opportunity for industrialists to expand profitably?

Mr. Jenkin: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Ellis: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile the target growth rate set by the Chancellor in the Budget when he made available extra purchasing power with the 6 per cent. growth rate spoken of by the Welsh Council in its report some six weeks ago as being imperative if unemployment in Wales was to be reduced to a satisfactory figure within a reasonable period of time?

Mr. Jenkin: I am aware of the view put forward by the Welsh Council which is still being studied by members of the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING (NORTHERN IRELAND)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Northern Ireland Office with regard to the shipbuilding industry; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Prime Minister recognise that the intent of this Question was not to be critical of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Will he also recognise that the House is in real difficulty here because the shipyard in Northern Ireland is an important part of British shipbuilding and therefore the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland ought not to be burdened with trying to solve the intricate problems involved? Would he not agree that this ought to be the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry?

The Prime Minister: This matter was being handled by the Department of Commerce in Northern Ireland; and, as under the legislation, my right hon. Friend has taken over the powers and responsibilities of the Departments of Government in Northern Ireland, it is only right that he should exercise his responsibilities in this House. The legislation was quite specific about this. If

we were to say that subjects in which Ministers in the Westminster Departments seem to have a common interest ought also to be handled by them in this House, any clear definition of the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would disappear at once.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Would it not be logical for the Prime Minister to consider that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be responsible for shipbuilding in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: What I am really saying is that the existing definition of powers should be maintained. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Scottish Secretary is responsible for a very large area but that industrial policy is the one remaining sphere of major importance for which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry takes direct responsibility at Westminster. It has often been considered whether this ought to be changed and whether the Secretary of State for Scotland ought to take it over. In general it has been agreed by Governments of both parties that to make such a change would not be beneficial to Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-APOLLO PROGRAMME

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with co-operation between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence on the subject of British participation in the post-Apollo programme; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Department of Trade and Industry takes the lead, working closely with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that any defence implications there may be are taken fully into account.

Mr. Dalyell: What precisely are these outstanding issues that the Prime Minister tells us have to be clarified with the Americans?

The Prime Minister: They are issues of cost and technology.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are a considerable number of contracts and sub-contracts which could be of immense advantage to this country? Will he let


us know as soon as possible when we can expect the Government's comments on the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology dealing with this matter?

The Prime Minister: I do not know the exact timing for this but we are obviously dealing with it as expeditiously as we can. As to the question of contracts, those with which we are all concerned at the moment are for the exploratory study being carried out by the European Governments interested. We have already announced that we are making our contribution of around a quarter of a million pounds towards carrying out that study. Naturally we hope that some contracts will be placed in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister on what grounds he has appointed an additional Minister to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

The Prime Minister: Because of additional work in the Department.

Mr. Hamilton: Which Department—the Tory Central Office? Is not this the third time that a Tory Prime Minister has sought to finance a party political appointment out of public funds, the other two occasions being the appointment of Mr. John Hare, as he then was, and the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)? Is it not a gross abuse to use public money predominantly for party political services, and will not the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food spend a disproportionate amount of his time, financed out of public money, on party political matters?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will carry out all his duties. We are in a period of intensive preparation for entry into the European Community, and that is why the number of Ministers in the Department has been increased from two to three. That is one less than the number of Ministers in that Department in the last Labour Administration when the Department had no European responsibilities whatever. I

find extraordinary the view that members of a Government are not allowed to take part in political activities. There is no abuse here, any more than there was abuse when the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was at the same time Treasurer of the Labour Party and Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recall that during that period of office of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) the £ was devalued and the Labour Party went bankrupt?

Mr. Callaghan: Is not one of the major differences that this is a personal appointment by the Prime Minister, whereas the officers of the Labour Party are appointed by election at the annual conference and not as a piece of personal patronage? Subject to that, may I say to my hon. Friends that surely we should not complain too much. Is it not appropriate that the Prime Minister should appoint someone who, when he was questioned about the increase in food prices and what the Prime Minister had said about it, as a first attempt at propaganda, said that no housewife could have been expected to believe what the Prime Minister had to say on the subject?

The Prime Minister: I see no difference in the way in which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite take part in politics, whether it is on their own initiative, by appointment or by a form of election. In any case, there is no abuse under our system.

Oral Answers to Questions — HERR BRANDT (DISCUSSIONS)

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Prime Minister if he and Herr Brandt discussed the coming French referendum on the proposed enlargement of the European Community at their recent meeting.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Dr. Gilbert: As M. Pompidou laid down that one of the purposes of the referendum was to get national consent to the basic principles of the common agricultural policy, and as he obtained less than full-hearted consent to that proposition, does the right hon. Gentleman


now see an opportunity to try to re-negotiate those principles?

The Prime Minister: That was not a matter of discussion with Chancellor Brandt.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Carter: asked the Prime Minister what further plans he now has for making ministerial appointments.

The Prime Minister: Unless and until I make an announcement to the contrary, I do not propose to increase or reduce the number of Ministers in any Department, or to alter the present allocation of responsibilities to Departments.

Mr. Carter: Does that answer mean that the Prime Minister is satisfied with his ministerial staff who are dealing with unemployment? Is he aware that in Birmingham last month 263 Easter school-leavers went straight into the dole queue, joining 1,500 young people who were already there, and that, whereas nationally job vacancies rose last month, in Birmingham they fell?

The Prime Minister: What my answer means is that the action which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken is the largest reflation which any Government have ever undertaken and that the Central and West Midlands will benefit from it. I do not intend to try to achieve results by changing the governmental structure.

Mr. Redmond: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we in Lancashire are very satisfied with the new regional policies, particularly with the appointment of the Minister for Industrial Development, and that in spite of high unemployment there are some vacancies that are becoming difficult to fill?

The Prime Minister: Yes, the regional policy for Lancashire, Yorkshire and Humberside announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should give more opportunities to those areas.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Are we to take it from the Prime Minister's original answer that he will not agree to the request of Herr Brandt to appoint another Minister to deal with European ques-

tions, or does he intend to carry out Herr Brandt's suggestion?

The Prime Minister: The reply means exactly what I said, which is that unless and until I make an announcement to the contrary there will not be changes.

Oral Answers to Questions — DANISH PRIME MINISTER (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Deakins: asked the Prime Minister if in his forthcoming discussions with the Danish Prime Minister he will seek to reach an agreement on a mutually balanced phasing out of aid, both direct and indirect, to the respective bacon curing industries.

The Prime Minister: This will be a matter for discussion with the Community and other interested acceding countries over the next few months: it is not a subject for purely bilateral agreements.

Mr. Deakins: Does not the Prime Minister realise that the unilateral removal of support for the bacon-curing industry in this country would result in a big increase in imports of bacon and would rob the pig industry of the opportunities for expansion which were promised in the Government's White Paper?

The Prime Minister: I know the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in this, but it is a matter which will have to be dealt with by the Community. The Community has recognised that continued stability is necessary under conditions of fair competition. I appreciate the importance of the bacon stabilisation scheme, but this will now have to be dealt with by the acceding and existing members of the Community.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Prime Minister what official talks he has had with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic since the suspension of Stormont.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir: but Her Majesty's Government remain in close touch with the Government of the Irish Republic.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of outrages such as the murder of Corporal


Elliott, has the political initiative evoked any determination in Dublin to deal effectively with the IRA which is illegal in the Republic, and will my right hon. Friend discuss with the Taoiseach the possibility of joint policing of the Border?

The Prime Minister: The question of the IRA in the Republic of Ireland is obviously a matter for the Government of Ireland. I share my hon. Friend's horror not only of the particular incident to which he calls attention but of many others which have happened on the Border. We have on many occasions drawn the attention of the Government in Dublin to these incidents. The Prime Minister of the Republic also knows well that we should welcome a closer co-ordination between the forces responsible for maintaining law and order on both sides of the Border, and I hope that it will be possible gradually to develop that.

Mr. Molloy: Is the Prime Minister prepared to consider with his right hon. Friend the establishment of a peace council, in view of the changed circumstances, and will he invite Cardinal Conway and other eminent people north and south of the Border to be members of that peace council, to give both Protestants and Catholics a new loyalty and an impetus to establish sanity and peace in the area?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is in close contact with representatives of a wide span of opinion in Northern Ireland about how to improve relations between the communities. I cannot commit myself to the proposal which the hon. Gentleman has put forward, but it is well recognised, both north and south of the Border, that the improvement of relations between the communities is the purpose of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIETNAM

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Prime Minister what representations he has made to President Nixon about the war in Vietnam, in view of Great Britain's co-chairmanship of the Geneva Conference.

The Prime Minister: I have made no representations to President Nixon. In

our capacity as co-Chairman we suggested to the Russians that the Geneva Conference should be reconvened. Regrettably the Russians have replied that they do not consider this practicable.

Mr. Huckfield: Does the Prime Minister's comparative reticence mean that he is primarily interested in getting President Nixon re-elected or in securing peace in Vietnam? Does he not realise that the escalation of the bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong will lead to the most serious confrontation with the Soviet Union since Cuba? Is not the best possible advice he can give to President Nixon to get out before it is too late?

The Prime Minister: That is exactly the same supplementary question as the hon. Gentleman asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs yesterday. As he was told then, our responsibility as co-Chairman is to try to get the other co-Chairman, Mr. Gromyko, to agree to the Geneva Conference being reconvened. This is not the only occasion on which we have asked him to do so, but on each occasion he has flatly refused, and this I regret.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does not the flagrant invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam now prove to any reasonable, fair-minded person how right the Americans have been in what they are trying to achieve in Vietnam?

The Prime Minister: President Nixon made it plan that, as American forces were being withdrawn, if North Vietnamese forces launched a major attack, he would be bound to take action to protect the final withdrawal of United States forces. This surely is an attitude to be respected.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to draw your attention to the situation created earlier today by the answers of the Minister of State to the Treasury to Questions 5, 11 and 12. In doing so, I assure you, Sir, that no deliberate discourtesy was intended to yourself by me during that interchange in what was an intolerable situation created for you and the House by the deception carried out upon the House by the Minister.
I raise this matter not because I regard you as in any sense responsible for the content of answers, Mr. Speaker, since you are not responsible for that aspect, but because you are the guardian of the rights of back benchers at Question Time. When the right of back benchers to question Ministers is placed in jeopardy by the way in which Ministers answer Questions, it is surely correct that we should appeal to you to protect back benchers——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The content of the Minister's answer is not a matter for a point of order. I thought the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) was about to ask whether he should have been called for a supplementary question. I am prepared to deal with that matter because I have now in my hands the draft of the OFFICIAL REPORT. The impression I gained as far as my hearing was concerned was that the hon. Member did not get up on a point of order. He asked a question. He said:
I think the Minister has given a wrong answer. Before we get on, should he not reconsider his answer and give the correct statistic?
Therefore, I maintain I was entirely within my rights in the course I took.

Mr. Kaufman: I wish in no way, Mr. Speaker, to dispute your ruling, and I do not seek in any way to suggest that you should have called me for a supplementary question if by inadvertence or in some other way I failed to rise on a point of order. What I wish to do is not to ask you to rule on the contents of answers to a Question but to ask you about the rights of back benchers. For the past year and nine months, whenever the question of the purchasing power of the pound has been raised, I have attempted to put this matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Question Time, and the Minister concerned has given an answer—as can be seen from column 211, of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 28th March—based on the general index of retail prices. Surely hon. Members in seeking to deal with a Question would be justified in expecting the Minister to continue to deal with that series of Questions, but for the first time today the new Minister of State gave an answer based on a completely different series, which was——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That may be a very good point of argument and a sound matter for debate, but it is not something which can be brought within the rules of a point of order.

Mr. Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago, in dealing with a point of order which had been disposed of you quoted to the House the text of the OFFICIAL REPORT which had come into your hands. Might I seek your guidance on this point, because it has been commonly understood that it is not in order for other hon. Members to obtain or quote during a current sitting the official record made for the OFFICIAL REPORT of anything any hon. Member has said? It may be that there is, and perhaps should be, a distinction in this respect between the Chair and any other hon. Member, but I wonder whether you would think it right to clarify this point either now or subsequently.

Mr. Speaker: I will clarify the matter now, so far as I can. I have always understood that Mr. Speaker was the exception to that rule. The OFFICIAL REPORT is published under Mr. Speaker's control, and he is the one person who is entitled to send for it. Since the right hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, and, going on the basis that the Chair can always be wrong, I shall look at this matter again to see whether I am right.

Mr. Dempsey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will notice that my Question No. 22 was not reached. When an hon. Member goes to the trouble of tabling a Question 14 days earlier it is a shame that the Question is not reached because of the regrettable incident which took place when my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) was asked to leave the Chamber. During that period altercations ensued between you, Mr. Speaker, and some hon. Members on my side of the House, and a considerable time was lost in the process. When an incident of this type occurs and leads to so much of Question Time being lost, is it not possible to allow time for those Questions to be answered after the Prime Minister has answered his Questions?

Mr. Speaker: In this as in many other contexts the prospect of "injury time" is very attractive, and I have often


thought in regard to interruptions that the idea of "injury time" is a good one. But, as always happens whenever the Chair tries to hurry things up, it usually takes more time. I am under constant pressure to try to get through more Questions more quickly, and whenever I try to do so it seems to cause trouble. I believe that what I did today was right, and I do not apologise for it.

Mr. Clinton Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Reverting to the question put to you by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), I must point out that I was sitting next to him when he raised his point——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick was kind enough to say that any criticism by him of the Chair was not a matter which he was seeking to pursue. We must pass on to the next business.

Mr. Davis: I was seeking to refer not to the conduct of the Chair in any shape or form, Mr. Speaker, but to the reporting in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for a point of order today. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was right to say what he did as the general rule.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (DISPUTE)

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
I can confirm to the House that so far today there has been a virtual resumption of normal rail services. If, as I hope, this situation continues during the evening rush hour, I expect so to certify to the Industrial Court later today.
Immediately thereafter I shall be in touch with the parties to urge them to reopen their discussions as quickly as possible.
I am sure the whole House will hope that now industrial action has been discontinued a settlement will be reached.

Mr. Prentice: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the resumption of services owes a great deal to the tremendous efforts of Mr. Ray Buckton,

General Secretary of ASLEF, who worked right through Saturday night and all through yesterday with many of his colleagues urging his members in the Southern Region to resume normal working, instead of indulging in the sort of provocative action taken by the General Manager of the Southern Region?
The right hon. Gentleman in his statement said that he urged the parties to reopen their discussions. What rôle does he see for himself and his Department during the cooling-off period? Will he bear in mind that the court made the order on an application from the Government in which the Government had to show why they thought a cooling-off period would be conducive to a settlement. Does that not imply some active rôle in seeking a settlement during this critical stage?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the prospects of a settlement will not be improved if senior Ministers make one-sided speeches attacking the unions while delicate negotiations are going on? Will he urge a cooling-off period on some of his colleagues at the same time?

Mr. Macmillan: I hope that we can all allow time and the right atmosphere for these negotiations and talks to be conducted. I gratefully acknowledge the work of all the union leaders concerned, including Mr. Buckton, to achieve this result. I hope that in turn they will acknowledge that in dealing with this unofficial action the court appears at least to have been of some assistance to them. It went on for some 10 days before the order was sought, but was brought to an end by the efforts of the union leaders five days after the order was applied. The function of my Department was to apply to the court, and the court ruled that it would grant this period of cooling-off in order to get the parties to resume their discussions. I regard it as part of my function to see that they do so as rapidly as possible.

Sir G. Nabarro: Reverting to the function of my right hon. Friend's Department, will he seek to define for clarification purposes among Members of Parliament and members of the general public whether working to rule is industrial action? If railwaymen obey the order not to work to rule, are not they


ipso facto breaking their own individual contracts of employment?

Mr. Macmillan: I think that at this stage it might be better if this remained a matter for discussion. However, I am clear about one matter. If, as my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has remarked, industrial action is suggested by union officials for the purpose of furthering an industrial dispute, it has very little object unless it causes some form of dislocation.

Mr. Bagier: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the application made by him to the court was one under Section 138(1)(c) which had to show that it was conducive to creating an atmosphere whereby arbitration, conciliation or negotiation could take place? Is he now saying that, because the order has been granted, the statements by the Government and by Mr. Richard Marsh to the effect that not a penny more can be paid are no longer valid and there is really a basis for negotiations to take place between the parties?

Mr. Macmillan: The form which the discussions will take is a matter for the board and the unions. All that the court order has done is to create a situation where discussions can take place without any pressure on the public and, therefore, on the board as a result of industrial action.

Mr. Goodhart: Will my right hon. Friend realise that season ticket holders have had to bear the brunt of this dispute so far in that they have had to pay for services which have not be rendered? Will he now have consultations with his ministerial colleagues to see whether the lives of season tickets can be extended to take account of the period when services were not provided?

Mr. Macmillan: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries, but I have no doubt that he has noted my hon. Friend's remarks.

Mr. Bidwell: When the right hon. Gentleman decides to play the old rôle of conciliator in the dispute in the coming days and, if I may use a famous phrase, to "jaw, jaw, not war, war", will he bear in mind that very often in the

United States' experience cooling-off periods have led to long hotting-up periods afterwards? Is he aware that railwaymen are sick to death of working 60 and more hours a week to get a living wage? Is he aware, further, that the parties are very close together but that the situation might easily be reached where we got exactly what I have described?

Mr. Macmillan: Without accepting the hon. Gentleman's premise, certainly I accept that there could be a rôle for my Department at some stage. I would not prejudge that issue. This is a matter which at this stage should be left to the board and the unions concerned.

Mr. Adley: Following the remarks by the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) about Mr. Ray Buckton, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Industrial Relations Act looks as though it will fortify the hands of the officially elected union representatives?

Mr. Macmillan: I hope sincerely that that will be the case. I am grateful for the decision that the union should now be represented at the court.

Mr. Callaghan: May I press the right hon. Gentleman further on the rôle that he thinks his Department might have? Has he indicated to Mr. Marsh that he is free to return to the Government if he finds that, for example, by advancing the date for the increase from the next financial year to this financial year at a cost of £4 million he can satisfy the claim? Has he told Mr. Marsh that in such circumstances the Government will be willing to reconsider the matter?

Mr. Macmillan: Throughout these negotiations the board has been entirely free to act according to its judgment. That is still the position.

Mr. Callaghan: That is not what I am asking. The Minister has said that he can conceive of circumstances in which his Department will have a rôle to play. Does that rôle extend to some financial assistance for this year, since I believe that to be the main sticking point, the increase having been offered from a date in the next financial year?

Mr. Macmillan: I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have


been one of the first to realise that my Department does not provide financial aid to anyone. [Interruption.] My rôle is entirely that of bringing the parties together. The rôle of my Department is exactly that which it has in any form of wage negotiation of this kind.

Mr. Callaghan: That is a very unsatisfactory reply. Does the Prime Minister conceive—[Interruption.] Anyone is entitled to answer on behalf of the Government since apparently the Secretary of State for Employment cannot. This is a serious question which will affect the course of negotiations. Is not one of the major difficulties here that the award given by Mr. Jarratt has been post-dated? Has not Sir Sidney Greene gone on record as saying that if the award were brought forward by a few months there would be at least the prospect of a settlement? Therefore, I put this to the Prime Minister, since the Secretary of State for Employment cannot answer. Do the Government consider it within their responsibility to accept some financial obligation if it means a settlement, or is Mr. Marsh still out on his own without a penny more to offer?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not think that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) is helping towards a satisfactory solution of this problem by seeking to force the hand of the chairman of the board at this stage of the negotiations.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: Is it not a fact that the 16 per cent.—let alone the 12½ per cent.—agreed by Mr. Jarratt must be considered highly inflationary by the whole House? We held this view last week. Is that not still the fact? In addition, is it not the fact that if a 60-hour week is being worked there is a good case for reducing it and providing employment for those elsewhere in the country who need that employment?

Mr. Macmillan: I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that I think it is wise for me not to anticipate any phase of these negotiations at this stage.

Mr. John Mendelson: Is the Secretary of State aware that when he refers to his own position, which is that of chief conciliator, he must take into account

the very strong feeling in areas where there are considerable concentrations of railwaymen working in the industry that they expect there to be real negotiations when the two sides meet again? In view of the serious implications of the timing of the award, which has to do with the long-term relations between the two sides, is there not an obligation on the Government that the Minister should give an encouraging reply to my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. It will not help the progress of the negotiations if we seek to conduct them in this House today.

Mr. David Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the difference between the parties? Reference has been made to £4 million, or something of that nature. Are we to understand that the unions' rejection of the Jarratt award means that it is still accepted by the board, or is the difference not £4 million but substantially more?

Mr. Macmillan: I must ask my hon. Friend to accept that it is for the chairman of the board and the three unions concerned to conduct the negotiations. Let us at least wait until they get together before taking any further part.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British Railways are at the moment inflaming the position as they have issued instructions to their divisional managers to compile a dossier of all employed by British Rail so that a ballot can be held in future? Has this got the Government's backing?

Mr. Macmillan: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the management of British Railways is collecting the names and addresses of members for their records, I must point out that that is a matter for the management, not for the Government.

CAMMELL-LAIRD SHIPBUILDING AND ENGINEERING LIMITED

3.52 p.m.

The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): The House will recall that on 3rd November, 1971, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced that a loan facility of up to £3 million was being


made available to Cammell-Laird Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited while the new management completed its review of the company's future. This review has now been completed and has been examined by the Government and by the Laird Group, the other shareholder.
The shareholders have concluded that there are reasonable prospects of a viable future for the firm as a merchant shipbuilder and that it should be enabled to strengthen its position and to undertake a substantial programme of modernisation. The Government are prepared in principle to provide finance for this purpose, but consider that such a programme must be examined in the context of the general review of the shipbuilding industry which, as announced in paragraph 37 of Cmnd. 4942, is to be carried out by the Industrial Development Executive.
It is, however, important that this examination should not lead to damaging delay. The Government, therefore, accept that the company should proceed immediately with the necessary initial steps. The Government will, therefore, ensure that the £3 million facility already announced will be made available in an appropriately accessible form, and will also, subject to continuing consultation with the company, be prepared to make available further sums up to about £3 million to cover such commitments as may prove unavoidable to enable modernisation to proceed.
The Government will, of course, wish to satisfy themselves that the company and the unions are vigorously tackling outstanding problems in the field of labour relations so that full benefit is obtained from the modernisation and substantial safeguards to employment are thus provided.
The general review will be pressed ahead as quickly as possible, and I will make a further announcement in due course.

Mr. Benn: I thank the Minister for his statement, which we very much welcome, of a further £3 million in addition to the £3 million announced at the end of last year.
May we take it that the Industrial Development Executive will be taking on

the work of the Shipbuilding Industry Board as well as that of the IRC? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when the legislation will be brought before the House so that we can debate the provisions?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that now that the Ministry of Technology has been re-established and is pursuing a vigorous interventionist policy, the Opposition will look on the Government's proposals with keen interest and critical sympathy?

Mr. Chataway: If anyone were to take seriously the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, he could only conclude that he had a very superficial knowledge of these matters. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the free-booting agency which he established in the IRC, with the possibility of buying shares in the market and taking over firms against their wishes, bears very little relationship to the task with which I am entrusted.
Leaving aside what I suppose must be regarded as the expected knockabout from the right hon. Gentleman, I am glad that he supports the measures which I have announced. The necessary legislation will be brought forward as soon as possible.

Mr. Skeet: While welcoming the news, may I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that £10 million of public money has already been allocated to this company? Will he indicate in the general rationalisation which is to take place the types of vessel which are likely to be built there. Will they include LNG, LPG and chemical tankers, or is it intended to keep to sophisticated vessels in this shipyard?

Mr. Chataway: Only £3 million has been afforded in support of this company hitherto. What I have announced today is a commitment up to a further £3 million for modernisation. The yard has been primarily a naval shipbuilder in the past. It sees its future largely as a commercial merchant shipbuilder. It is to that end that the modernisation is now being pursued.

Mr. Dell: I welcome the statement. Regarding the right hon. Gentleman's reference to or emphasis on merchant shipbuilding, may I ask whether there is any intention—I hope not—to prevent the firm tendering for naval orders in future?
What is the estimate of the total cost of modernisation required compared with the £3 million now being brought forward?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the likely effect that his statement will have on employment, bearing in mind the considerable fall in employment in the yard over the last few years?

Mr. Chataway: There is no suggestion that the yard would be prevented from tendering for naval orders from time to time in future. It is simply that it sees its main future as a commercial merchant shipbuilder.
Regarding the total cost of the modernisation programme, we are at the moment in discussion with the firm and the other shareholder and shall wish to consider the total extent of modernisation in the context of the general review of shipbuilding. I will announce to the House any decisions as and when they can be made.
The yard at the moment employs 5,500, and the company believes that it should be able to maintain employment at that figure.

Dame Joan Vickers: I am a little disturbed about future naval orders. May I have an absolute assurance that work which would normally go to Her Majesty's dockyards will not go to this yard in future?

Mr. Chataway: Nothing that I have announced this afternoon could carry that implication.

Mr. Stonehouse: What investment in equity shares does the Minister intend to take up in return for the £6 million investment of taxpayers' funds?

Mr. Chataway: We shall be considering with the other shareholder the most appropriate arrangements. We shall not come to a final decision about that matter until we are able to determine the total extent of the modernisation programme.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: What did my hon. Friend mean by an "appropriately accessible form"? Was that the point to which the right hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) was referring?

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. It is simply that £3 million has hitherto been avail-

able as a standby credit. It is clear that it will be required by the firm, and we are discussing with it what would be the most appropriate form.

Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman spell out in a little greater detail exactly what kind of supervision the Government will institute over the use to which the money is put?
Will the Minister accept that Merseyside is pleased that the Government have gone back on their previous policy, because it is absolutely essential to develop the shipbuilding industry on Merseyside and elsewhere?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that industrial relations at Cammell-Laird have been pretty good for some considerable time and that the basic problem in the past on Merseyside has been not bad industrial relations but bad management?

Mr. Chataway: I accept that there is a connection between bad industrial relations and bad management, and I do not believe that this yard has been entirely free from either. The new management which was installed by my right hon. Friend in this firm believes, as I have said, that it will be possible to maintain employment at its present level. I recognise that, as the hon. Gentleman says, the prosperity of this firm is extremely important to Merseyside. The Government recognise that practically every country in the world is at the moment supporting its shipbuilding firms, and, as we have always made clear, we are determined to pursue a strategy in the regions where 90 per cent. of the shipbuilding firms are located which is fairer to those regions.

Mr. Warren: Would my right hon. Friend clarify whether or not this aid is in the form of a loan or a grant, and say what repayment terms he has in mind?

Mr. Chataway: These are matters which are being negotiated with the other shareholder and will not be determined until we are in a position to decide the full extent of the modernisation programme. But I can assure my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that we are monitoring the performance of the firm very carefully and that over the past


months we have received from the new management on a regular monthly basis a very full flow of information.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I join my right hon. Friend in welcoming these announcements, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the theme of modernisation he can modernise the only steelmaking capacity in the North-West—namely, that at Irlam—at a lower cost than £6 million?

Mr. Chataway: I think that that is another question.

Mr. Rost: Will the Government be directly represented on the board?

Mr. Chataway: That, too, is a matter that will be considered when the final plans can be determined.

Mr. Willey: Will the Minister recognise that the most efficient and prosperous shipyards in Britain are on the River Wear, and when he is considering Government aid will he consider investing a few million pounds of Government money in the best-managed, most efficient and most profitable yards in the country? If he used his common sense he would be putting in money to increase their capacity.

Mr. Chataway: The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to propositions to which I should be rash to subscribe, but it is clear that all major shipbuilders will benefit from the measures that were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and from the measures contained in that White Paper.

Mr. Winterton: Can we take it from my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon that any large national company that runs into trouble will be able to come to the Government for assistance?

Mr. Chataway: I think that my hon. Friend knows perfectly well that that is not the position. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear on many occasions, it would be a sad delusion on the part of any inefficient management to believe that was the case. What we recognise is that there are regional difficulties and that there are in this country industries which compete not in a free market but against subsidised competitors.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I want to ask a question about legislation. As regards this announcement or any part of the announcements concerning shipbuilding, of which there were three in the major Bill concerning the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry, on whose Vote is this money to be carried? I warmly welcome the fact that the Minister is considering equity in view of the bitter experience that we have had in Governments of both parties in connection with two major investments on the Clyde, both of which lost a great deal of Government money through the Government not having equity.

Mr. Chataway: The full modernisation programme will be paid for as a result of the powers that we shall be seeking in due course, but the timing of the legislation would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

CONTINENTAL SHELF (AMENDMENT)

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision regarding the terms and conditions of licences granted to companies engaged in the exploration for and production of oil and gas in the United Kingdom sector of the continental shelf.
It is not my intention to cover all the happenings since the passage of the Continental Shelf Act in 1964, but I feel that it is generally conceded that the need to give oil companies and others the incentive to explore for oil and gas on the United Kingdom continental shelf necessitates a flexible approach to legislation. I make no major criticism, therefore, of the way the Act has been used to open up areas for exploration and eventual production. Other nations have used the methods of allocation adopted here as models for their own purposes, but events and discoveries and now the action of other countries, particularly Norway, ought to make us pause and review our own legislation.
The Bill that I place before the House would have as its main purposes five elements.
First, I believe it is correct to seek to strengthen the area of parliamentary accountability under Section 1(5) of the 1964 Act. The present form of reporting


is, in my view, inadequate, and Parliament ought to receive information on the total investment being undertaken by companies in exploration and production work on the United Kingdom continental shelf.
Second, we ought to be able to disentangle the consortia which have been put together under a variety of guises in order to see who owns what in relation to the total allocation of blocks.
Third, once the oil has been obtained it should be necessary for the companies to show their reasons if they choose not to have the oil brought ashore and refined in the United Kingdom.
Four, a clear condition ought to be expressed that holders of exploration and production licences ought to give preference to United Kingdom manufacturers when ordering equipment.
Five, the legislation ought to give a specific pledge to encourage proposals which facilitate direct participation by public enterprises in exploring and drilling for oil and gas.
The possibilities and potentialities of oil and gas on the United Kingdom continental shelf are too important to be left to the oil companies. These are national assets, and it is the responsibility of the House to bring the searchlight of public accountability to bear on these issues.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dick Douglas, Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, Mr. George Lawson, Mr. Hugh D. Brown, Mr. Michael Cocks, Mr. David Lambie, Mr. Edward Milne, Mr. Harry Ewing, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. Gavin Strang, and Mr. Peter Doig.

Continental Shelf (Amendment)

Bill to make further provision regarding the terms and conditions of licences granted to companies engaged in the exploration for and production of oil and gas in the United Kingdom sector of the continental shelf, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 5th May, and to be printed. [Bill 125.]

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress 19th April].

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 2

General implementation of Treaties

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Peter Shore: On a point of order, Sir Robert. There are two points which I should be grateful if I could put to you now. One concerns the provisional selection of Amendments—that is the fourth group shown on the Notice Paper today. It may be that it would be more convenient to you if I were to pursue this matter tomorrow rather than today but I should just like to put to you the point that there are here a very large number of regulations brought together in these Amendments and we would be very grateful if you could give further consideration to their grouping.

The Chairman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point with me. I am giving the matter very careful consideration and hope to be able to give the Committee some important information tomorrow.

Mr. Shore: I am grateful to you for that answer, Sir Robert. I do not wish to pursue the matter further.
I make my second submission by way of a point of order with some diffidence because it relates not to an Amendment which stands in my name but to one which has been tabled by other hon. Members. When we turn to the first group of Amendments which we are about to discuss we find that, unfortunately, it covers a very wide area indeed.
I submit to you, Sir Robert, and perhaps through you to the authors of Amendments Nos. 143 and 7, that we are in some difficulty because these two Amendments among all the others take us outside Clause 2(1) and well into Clause 2(2). While I can see that there may be a connection between them, it would in


my view make for a better and more orderly discussion if those Amendments were taken at a later stage.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order, may I address you on several matters, including the one which the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) has raised with you, Sir Robert? Amendment No. 143 to which he referred is in my name, and I respectfully support his submission that it refers to a different matter. It is, in logic, consequential on Amendment No. 136, which you have placed at the head of another group. I hope, therefore, that you will be able to accede to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Stepney.
May I incidentally say, Sir Robert, that the Committee generally will feel that the manner in which the selections are now set out, particularly in regard to the order of Divisions, is a helpful innovation, and I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee are grateful to you for this improvement.

The Chairman: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for those comments. I am pleased to be able to tell him and the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) that I am ready to accede to what has been requested in regard to those Amendments. Amendment No. 7 is, of course, in the name of another right hon. Gentleman.

Sir Robin Turton: May I raise with you, Sir Robert, a point of order regarding the previous selection of Amendments? Amendments Nos. 80 and 54, which relate to the Schedule, were in the first grouping. I notice that they have disappeared. Clearly, they were not really connected with the first group. May I have an assurance that their disappearance does not mean that they have lost your selection but that they will appear in their proper place later on?

The Chairman: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that has nothing to do with me. I think the Amendments have been taken off for the moment.

Mr. John Biffen: Would you look sympathetically, Sir Robert, at a request that a separate Division be taken on Amendment No. 7, which stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) and others,

including myself, as it seems to touch on a point which is substantially different and distinct?

The Chairman: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): On a point of order, Sir Robert. May I, for the sake of clarity, ask you to make clear the point at which we have got so far in these matters? I understand that you acceded to the proposition that Amendment No. 143, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), should be withdrawn from the first group and added to the third group.
Meanwhile, the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) mentioned Amendment No. 7, which is also in the first group, and was the subject of the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). I am not sure that the Committee is entirely clear whether you indicated that Amendment No. 7 would be withdrawn from the first group or would retain its position in that group. Is it remaining in the first group or moving somewhere else?

The Chairman: I think I had better hold my decision for a while on Amendment No. 7, certainly until I receive further representations on the subject. Perhaps we can leave it out of account for the moment.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Powell: In view of what you have said, Sir Robert, perhaps I might raise with you on a point of order, although Amendment No. 7 is not in my name, the question of the position of that Amendment. In the light of your concluding words, I add my support to the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) that at the very least a separate Division should be permitted on Amendment No. 7, which raises a subject not raised by any of the other Amendments.
In clarification of a ruling which you gave a little earlier, Sir Robert, may I inquire whether there was perhaps some ambiguity in your expression "taken off" in regard to the Amendments to the first Schedule originally grouped with Amendment No.79? I take it that by that expression you meant that in view of


their order in the proceedings they did not at present appear on the provisional selection but there was no question of removing them from the Notice Paper.
There are two substantial points to which I direct your attention, Sir Robert. The first refers to Amendments Nos. 216 and 78, both of which you have been good enough to designate for separate Divisions. I submit that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if these could be treated as a separate group as their subject matter, though at first sight closely allied to that of the other Amendments which rightly and logically belong in this group, is in fact very different.
The essential point, which I am not seeking to argue at this stage, is that one or other of these Amendments, if made, would not only give control over the validation of Community legislation but would give control over the Executive at an earlier stage when Community legislation was being prepared.
They therefore raise, not, as many of the other Amendments do, the question of the form of validation by Parliament of Community legislation but the question of the control by Parliament of the co-operation of the Executive with the other parts of the European Community. I therefore submit that Amendments Nos. 216 and 78 logically form a separate group.
My second and final submission—I apologise for detaining the Committee—relates to Amendment No. 141 which stands in my name and which you have selected for separate Division, Sir Robert. This again is different in kind from the other Amendments in the group because it would limit the subject matter to which the procedures in subsection (1) would apply.
You have in your wisdom, Sir Robert, arranged as a separate group Amendments which seek to limit that procedure in point of time. My submission to you is that there is no difference logically, from the point of view of the arrangement of Amendments, between the limitation of time and the limitation of subject, and I therefore submit that Amendment No. 141 is essentially a subject on its own, or, if not, is at any rate distinct from those raised by this group, which it would be more convenient to take separately.

The Chairman: I am afraid that I must disappoint the right hon. Gentleman. I have made my selection differently.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for making submissions to me, and I assure the Committee that I have listened most carefully to all that has been said on this subject. As hon. Members know, I cannot enter into an argument, not that any hon. Member has attempted to enter into an argument with me, on my selection.
I do my best to satisfy as many hon. Members as possible in making my selection of Amendments. This is not an easy task. I am afraid that I cannot offer the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) anything except my assurance that I listened with great care to the submissions that he and his colleague made to me last night. I cannot, however, alter my selection further.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Sir Robert. May I assure you that we appreciate that we cannot argue with you, and would not wish to do so, about your selection of Amendments? I know that hon. Members on both sides wish to express gratitude to you for the extreme patience which you have shown in listening to all the representations that have been made over this matter.
The Amendments that we are now proposing to debate are regarded by some people as the most important group of Amendments in the Bill. We made similar representations to those of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in hoping that these matters could be discussed. But is it not the case that if Amendments of this character raise different issues from those in the principal Amendment this will be bound to affect the time that the Committee must devote to these matters?

The Chairman: I appreciate the hon. Member's point.

Mr. Edmund Dell: I understand that while I was momentarily out of the Chamber points were raised regarding Amendment No. 7 which stands in my name and that of other of my hon. Friends. I was perfectly happy with the grouping you have made, Sir Robert, but, equally, I am perfectly


happy to co-operate with my right hon. and hon. Friends if they would prefer a different grouping. I leave the matter entirely in your hands without further representation.

The Chairman: Perhaps we could solvitur ambulando.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 79, in page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (1).
May I associate myself with what has been said about the evident care that you have given to this selection, Sir Robert. We are much obliged to you, and, in particular, I am obliged that you have seen fit to select for Division a number of those Amendments in respect of which I ventured to make representations to you. As a result of your ruling we are discussing 17 Amendments covering a wide range of subjects.
Of these Amendment No. 79 is, of course, a radical Amendment proposing the excision of subsection (1). If we omit subsection (1) we emasculate the Bill. Whether this process of legislative vasectomy imposes a suitable restraint or an injurious and undesirable weakness depends upon one's general view of the Bill and of the whole subject of entry into the EEC.
Amendments Nos. 153 to 158 and Amendment No. 55 in effect do seriatim what Amendment No. 79 does compendiously. Amendment No. 216 would impose a further degree of parliamentary control on future regulations, directives and decisions. Amendment No. 78, which also stands in my name, would impose a further degree of parliamentary control but in a more limited context on the regulations emanating from Brussels on the sole authority of the Commission. Amendment No. 141 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) puts a substantial limitation on Clause 2 to confine it to specified subjects, and Amendment No. 7 in the name of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) is to some extent a palliative—no one could describe it as a wrecking Amendment, at any rate. It would place a duty of review on the Law Commission and thereby put a sort of patina of respectability on these

matters, which is very necessary no doubt, and, therefore, that Amendment is broadly to be welcomed.
In the Second Reading debate I referred to Clause 2, varying the anatomical metaphor, as the heart of the matter. Certainly, it has the dubious distinction of being the main element in the new and revolutionary constitutional arrangements which entry to the Community would impose. It is this Clause in particular which would incorporate the decrees of Brussels into the laws of Britain, be Parliament never so reluctant, or the people never so resentful. If the Clause and its subsection are passed, the defences are down and the floodgates are open. We shall have yielded the sovereignty of Parliament and turned our backs, in Hugh Gaitskell's phrase, on a thousand years of British history.
We shall have parted with the two basic ingredients which constitutionalists have identified in the characteristically British concept of the sovereignty of Parliament; that is to say, that first, Parliament should be the sole law-making agency because, in the language of the Clause, the decrees of Brussels are to be enforced and followed without further enactment. The exercise of Parliament's will will no longer be unfettered because, instead of the sole criterion for Parliament's legislative action being the interpretation of the will of the British people, its legislative power will be cribbed, cabined and confined within the limits of action left by the superior law of the Community.
I say "superior law" because where there is a conflict between our national law and the law of the Community, the Community law will prevail. The case law of the Community court, as well as the language of the treaty, makes it clear that there will be a superiority of Community law in matters covered by the treaty. In referring to the case law I feel in some difficulty in regard to citation, having regard to the very different logistics of the House and of the courts of law. If I were presenting this case in for example, the Court of Appeal, I would certainly cite a number of those judgments and authorities in extenso, and I think that it would probably be right to do so, but the logistics of the situation forbid that.
Fortunately, the authorities have been conveniently summarised in the September issue of the Modern Law Review in an article "The law of the European Communities and Municipal Law" by Dr. Gerhard Bebr. I hope I pronounce his name right I do not have the honour of his acquaintance, but I would very much like to do so both because he is no less a person than the legal adviser to the Commission and because he has written this very lucid article.
I will keep my citations to what I think is the reasonable minimum, but I am sure the Committee will agree that it is right that in our discussion of the matter we should be aware of what the Community law is. As we have listened to these debates, certainly in the small hours of, I think, last Wednesday, we have heard some rather surprising asseverations in regard to this matter from one right hon. Gentleman opposite. It is right that this afternoon I should put enough of the matter on the record for it to be clear to the Committee, and through the Committee to the British people, precisely what the position is in regard to the predominance of Community rule and the super cession of the sovereignty of Parliament.
4.30 p.m.
The leading case on the subject is Flaminio Costa v. Enel, which is known to the Committee as the Italian nationalisation case. In regard to that case the learned legal adviser to the Community has this to say:
In the Enel case, which is undoubtedly the leading case, the Court met this problem"—
the problem I have been referring to—
squarely and ruled thereon explicitly … having this problem in mind, the Court did not hesitate to state some general principles which in its view had to govern the relation of Community law to municipal law.
As the Committee is well aware, "municipal law" is merely the language of lawyers for national law.
In the view of the Court the EEC Treaty"—
and then the learned author sets out this citation from the judgment:
 '… has created its own legal order … having real powers resulting from a limitation of competence or of transfer of powers, from the States to the Community …. [It] would be impossible', argued the Court, 'to assert any internal text whatsoever against the law created by the Treaty … without robbing

it of its Community nature and without jeopardising the legal foundation of the Community itself.
The Court deduced this supremacy of Community law from the legal character of the Community legal order; from the transfer of limited State powers to the Community, and from the wording and spirit of the Treaty. 'This incorporation into the legal order of each member State of the provisions of the Community law', observed the Court, 'and the letter and spirit of the Treaty in general, have as a corollary the impossibility of States to assert against the legal order accepted by them, on a reciprocal basis, a subsequent unilateral measure which could not be challenged by it.'
I should perhaps mention the San Michele case, of which the learned author says:
The Court confirmed this ruling"—
the Enel ruling—
in the San Michele case. Although this decision does not refer to the Enel case, its reasoning leaves no doubt about the supremacy of the Community law.
Then in the Walt Wilhelm case the court referred to Article 87(2)(e) of the Treaty as confirming the pre-eminent character of Community law. In regard to that, the court said:
The EEC Treaty instituted its own legal order, integrated into the legal systems of the member States and which has priority before their courts. It would be contrary to the nature of such a system to accept that the member States may take or maintain in force measures liable to compromise the useful effect of the Treaty. The imperative force of the Treaty and of the acts issued in implementation of it could not vary from State to State by the effect of internal acts, without the functioning of the Community system being obstructed and the attainment of the aims of the Treaty being placed in peril.
There is one more citation I would make before leaving this part of the matter, and that is from a German case, the Handelsgesellschaft case.
On that, the learned author says:
In the recent Internationale Handelsgesellschaft case the Court did not hesitate to uphold the supremacy of the Community law even over national constitutional law. The litigation pending before a German administrative tribunal concerned the validity of an agricultural regulation challenged on the ground that it violated some basic rights guaranteed by the Basic Law. As the validity of the regulation was decisive for the outcome of the litigation, the tribunal requested the Court to review its validity. Upholding its validity the Court categorically refused to


review it in the light of the constitutional provisions,"—
that means the German national constitutional provisions—
maintaining that Community law prevails even over the constitution. In the strong words of the Court:' … The uniform validity of Community law would be impaired if a decision reviewing the validity of acts of the Community institutions would apply norms or principles of municipal law. The validity of Community acts may be reviewed in the light of Community law only ….' Consequently, reasoned the Court, 'no provisions of municipal law, of whatever nature they may be, may prevail over Community law … lest it be deprived of its character as Community law and its very legal foundation be endangered. The validity of a Community act or its application in a member State remains, therefore, unimpaired even if it is charged that the basic rights … or the national constitution were violated'.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I do not quarrel with what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying, but does he know that when that case was remitted to the German court last November after that decision of the Luxembourg Court, the German court refused to accept the decision of the Luxembourg Court? I do not know which way that cuts, but that is the present state of play.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. I am aware of those circumstances. It would take a very staunch proponent of the virtues of the Common Market to pray in aid this jurisdictional conflict as any comfort. It is a strange commentary. I fully agree with the implications of what my hon. and learned Friend says, upon the solidarity and fraternity which we are always led to believe are the basic ingredients of this happy body.
The ground on which the German administrative tribunal was challenging the Community law, and on which it is continuing to challenge it, would not be open to us, because we alone of the 10 member States, if in the event there are 10, have no formal written constitution. Therefore, we should be without the plea which was put forward in this case against Community law. In other words, the other member States have but poor defences against the supremacy of Community law, but our defences would be even poorer than theirs, because of the lack of that one defence which has so far shown, if it can be so called, even a partial success.
I could cite a good deal more authority, but I do not intend to do so for the logistical reasons I gave.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Of all the members of the Community, the old ones and the new ones, we alone are making the total act of subjection, and we are making it in this Clause.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. and learned Gentleman put it very felicitously, as always. That is precisely what we are doing. There is no comparable sacrifice in any other country because the sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively British concept, as was identified by Professor Kahn Freund in a very interesting article in The Times in the early days of this controversy in 1961 or 1962.
The authorities are summarised fairly in the conclusion given by Professor Wade in The Times of 20th April:
The present Bill can, and does, make Community law prevail over existing Acts of Parliament. It also expressly attempts to make it prevail over future Acts.
Professor Wade refers to Clause 2(4). We shall come to that hereafter. That is the result which this Bill seeks to make. This unique, irreversible and, to many, unpalatable result is achieved primarily by this subsection reinforced as to the future by subsection (4) of this Clause. It is that result which the Amendment I am moving is designed to frustrate.
The mechanism by which the Bill aims to produce this result can be discerned from the provisions of these linked Clauses 1 and 2. Clause 2(1) gives the force of law in the United Kingdom to "… rights, powers liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties …".
The phraseology of the opening sentence gives cause for concern: "right and powers" are the first two expressions. Those should be viewed with some reserve, even perhaps with scepticism. In practice they are likely to be less evident, less real and of less consequence than the liabilities, obligations and restrictions. The last three words are fraught with ominous implications. But the extent and effect of them is left at large in the language of the Clause.
We have some clues. "Liabilities" and "obligations" are printed in italics, meaning they have fiscal implications and are likely to be of a financial nature.


They will, or may, involve payments by Britain—that is to say, the obligation to submit to external taxation. Thereby they are in breach of an old, honoured constitutional principle of "no taxation without representation" and of the principle that the taxation of the British people is a matter for the British Parliament alone.
The phraseology is ominous and imprecise. It is as if the draftsman was seeking to cast his net as wide as possible rather than do what the law always should do—define obligations as precisely and narrowly as possible.
What is the precise difference between the terms "liabilities" and "obligations" in this subsection? If they mean the same thing there should be only one word. If they mean different things I should be obliged if my right hon. and learned Friend would say what the difference is, supporting it with citation from the relevant Community documents.
Similarly with the word "restrictions". What is the precise meaning of "restrictions" in this subsection? Does it include "prohibition", the term used, for example, in Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome and in Resolution XVII dated 6th February, 1962.

Mr. Michael English: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the results of incorporating the word "restrictions" here is to restrict the rights of action of persons—whether they be corporate or individual persons—to enforce this Act against persons who are breaking Community law, since Community law restricts their rights in that way?

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

4.45 p.m.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: That may well be. I have listened with respect and attention to the hon. Gentleman's contributions on this aspect of the matter. It is a phrase which might well need to be the subject of judicial interpretation, perhaps by the Community court.
At the moment the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that my request is a more modest one. I ask now what the Government think it means. What it means, in the event, may be a matter of law and interpretation. But at least we as a House

of Commons are entitled to know what they think it means.
My Amendment No. 275 is designed to raise and clarify this matter: so, I apprehend, is the Amendment No. 157 of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). If those Amendments are not to be accepted—I refer to the Amendments to delete "restrictions"—then an explanation is due to the Committee of the precise meaning, range and effect of the term "restrictions" and of the term "liabilities, obligations", specifying the differences between them.
First, we have to look to the treaties to see what obligations will be imposed by Community law. That is why we found Clause 1 to be so vitally important in the context of this Bill. In name it is only an interpretation Clause, but it is a paving Clause to Clause 2, or what was called the trigger Clause, because it sets off the fatal mechanism of Clause 2(1).
We see from the term "time to time" that the obligations with which we are concerned are both immediate and future. They derive from the two types of treaty identified in Clause 1 and Schedule I. It means that the commitment is open ended. We would have to accept the subordination of British law to Brussels law to an extent which cannot now be identified. Even the pre-accession treaties and obligations are not precisely ascertained or circumscribed.
We have the compendious terms of paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 giving ample scope for the emergence of cats from bags and skeletons from cupboards as we go along. The post-accession treaties and obligations, of their nature, are necessarily at large.
There is no need, in order to make the case for this Amendment, to try to make people's flesh creep by reference to future hazards or perils yet unknown. The evidence is already here in abundance in the existing treaties. In the words of Aneurin Bevan, "Why peer into the crystal when you can read the book?"
I shall not refer again to all the treaties. The logistics of these proceedings forbid it. It is not necessary because the Treaty of Rome is ample enough for that purpose. I must, therefore, now direct the Committee to the treaty and some of the material provisions governing this matter


and showing the extent to which we should have a subordination of British law and the sovereignty of Parliament if this Clause and subsection be enacted.
Article 3 of the treaty sets out the objectives, in particular, under (d),
the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of agriculture",
under (e),
the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of transport",
and under (h),
the approximation of the laws of Member States to the extent required for proper functioning of the common market".
The matter of approximation is pursued in Article 100, which says:
The Council shall, acting unanimously, on a proposal from the Commission, issue directives for the approximation of such provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States as directly affect the establishment of operation of the common market.
On the way to Article 189, I might perhaps refer the Committee in passing to Article 103, because I think it would be a pity if we missed it. This is an improved translation, because the text was different in the original translation. The opening sentence of Article 103 now reads:
Member States shall regard their conjunctural policies as a matter of common concern.
Not a clue about what it means! At first blush, it looks like some aspect of the permissive society but it is fair to say that Mr. Alan Campbell, Q.C., in his "Common Market Law" has a rather different and less agreeable explanation. In volume 2, page 97, of that admirable and compendious work, Mr. Campbell regards this as a reference to cycles of booms and slumps. Really, it conjures up a terrifying vision. Who is to interpret provisions such as the opening sentence of Article 103? No wonder Professor Wade felt it necessary to call his authoritative article in The Times, "Judges' Dilemma". If judges are to be faced by provisions of this sort, they are going to be in very great difficulty.

Mr. Eric Deakins: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that there is a difference in Community law between the use of the terms "approximation", "harmonisation" and "conjuncturing policies

together"? Do these terms mean the same or different things?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: "Approximation" is the widest word, covering the bringing into line of all aspects of domestic law with the law of the Community. "Harmonisation" is used, I understand, primarily in fiscal matters and perhaps social service matters as well. "Conjunctural"—well, the hon. Gentleman must apply either to Mr. Campbell or perhaps to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Why should we leave him out? Perhaps he is able to give us the answer. I do not find the Oxford dictionary very helpful in guiding us to a meaning, although I was interested to see a reference to the word "crises" in its definition of the word "conjunctural". But no doubt my right hon. and learned Friend has made a note of the hon. Gentleman's reasonable and pertinent inquiry and will define the conjunctural aspects of this in due course and make his option between the economic interpretation of Mr. Campbell and the possibilities of a more permissive interpretation.
I come then—and, of course, in this context it is a very vital matter indeed—to Article 189. It says:
In order to carry out their task the Council and the Commission shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, make regulations, issue directives, take decisions, make recommendations or deliver opinions.
A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but will leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.
A decision shall be binding in its entirety upon those to whom it is addressed.
So Article 189 quite transparently is the prime reason for subsection (1) of Clause 2. Subsection (1) is cast in wide terms because Article 189 is cast in wide terms. The subsection is draconian because Article 189 is draconian. The subsection erodes the sovereignty of Parliament because Article 189 imposed on nation States the supra-national law of Brussels, and from Brussels there flows this endless flood of regulations, directives and decisions.
But, although there are three categories of these edicts, they vary only in the


extent of their application and the method of their implementation. They have the common factor of subordinating national sovereignty, because each in the language of the treaty is binding in every respect. That means that they are not open to challenge either by the legislatures or by the judiciaries of the member States.
The 42 volumes, which a fortunate public can purchase for the sum of £63, show in English translation the regulations, directives and decisions which would bind us in every respect. But, of course, the 42 volumes are not complete. They set out the regulations, directives and decisions as they were at 10th November, 1971, so already no doubt there are some bulky volumes to be added, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will tell us what proposals he has for keeping us au courant with the continuing spate of regulations. It is the mot juste in this matter because we have to run very hard to keep up with all that is coming to us in the way of extra-national law because the tap is still turned full on. We are bound in every respect for the future—bound to decrees whose purport we cannot forecast and whose content we cannot challenge. These 42 volumes are only the tip of the iceberg, but at least they are some indication.
I do not think that in this Amendment we are really concerned with the precise content of these 42 volumes of regulations, directives and decisions. They can be canvassed and investigated hereafter, more particularly in the fourth group of Amendments.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Is this not a natural consequence? I take the example of the American States. When a new State was formed in the Middle West and wanted to adhere to the American Union, it had to accept the law as created by the States which were originally members, and to that extent it was in a bad position. Is not the difficulty to which my right hon. and learned Friend is referring a natural consequence of the fact that we are one of the late-comers into the European Economic Community? Will it not be very different if we adhere to the Community since in the future we shall be part of the creative organisation of these regulations?

5.0 p.m.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am not sure what my hon. Friend means by "the natural result". It is the inevitable result of an unnatural act. If we do join the Community we have to accept this burden. I have been saying that for the last 10 years. I respect the view of my hon. Friend; he has no disinclination to subordinate the sovereignty of Parliament and accept the predominance of Community law. It is one point of view. I am obliged to him for equating the future status of this country, if it does enter, with that of Texas or even some less prosperous and less colourful State within the United States.

Mr. Paget: When a new territory in America acquires the dignity of becoming a State it does not sacrifice anything at all. It has been subordinate to the American federal authority all along. By becoming accepted as a member its rights are enlarged not diminished.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: That is so, and we might well come to the position if we enter the Community on this basis of finding that the amount of jurisdiction left to us in future may be less than the amount of State jurisdiction as opposed to federal jurisdiction left to the individual States
It may be that the content of some of the regulations in these 42 volumes is innocuous and may even be beneficent. That is not the point. The point is that we have to accept existing regulations, directives and decisions without any power to select, discriminate or amend. What others have decided Britain would be compelled to accept. My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) says that in future we would be part of the decision-making process, but it would be as a minority of one in 10, accepting a majority verdict.
May I say a brief word about the pattern of these regulations? Of the 42 volumes in the English text one is an index. Of the remaining 41 only 13 are described as general and 28 deal with agriculture. Some of the agricultural volumes, in particular 14 and 15, are themselves fairly general in content. It is not surprising that we find this preponderance of agricultural directives and regulations because agriculture is the most highly developed part of the Market,


and the most expensive, too. In 1971 with a Community budget of about £1,200 million payments to agriculture reached nearly £900 million.
Britain will be at the paying end, paying for the privilege of conforming to these 28 volumes of agricultural regulations. We have been told in the last few days that this pattern may be modified in the long run and the Community may come to spend more on regional development and less on the subsidy of inefficient agriculture and the like. But we had better be cautious and even sceptical about that. Knowing the strength of the agricultural vote in Western Europe and recalling President Pompidou's assurance of a few months ago to his own constituents, I will believe in this bird in the bush when it comes to settle in the hand but not before.

Mr. Neil Marten: My right hon. and learned Friend referred to President Pompidou's speech to his constituents, but he repeated this assurance on his television broadcast and at his Press conference when dealing with the referendum in the last 10 days.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: No doubt if he had not done so the response in the referendum would have been even less satisfactory to him.
The other common policies are defined in the Treaty of Rome as well as the common agricultural policies, although they are not as yet so highly developed. That in turn will require an increasing flow of regulations, directives and decisions. I can illustrate this from volume 42, the index volume. The entries for transport and taxation are very small compared with the entries for some agricultural products; for example, sugar. But that will not last. As the Commission gets down to the task of formulating a common transport policy and down to the task of working out the details of tax harmonisation these other entries will swell rapidly.
The number of regulations, for example, for value-added tax and turnover tax are relatively small at the moment, but on the evidence of these volumes, as we can see from the entries on pages 90 and 92 of volume 42, it will not stay that way. It will be said as time goes on

—it is being said now—that the Community cannot work effectively without tax harmonisation, without economic and monetary union. Year by year the regulations, directives and decisions on taxation and transport will grow until at last they reach Frankenstein proportions. All these and much more will bind us in every respect if we accept this Clause and reject the Amendment.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 78, which has been grouped with this Amendment but for which a separate Division is to be allowed. This Amendment is designed to introduce a special safeguard for a particular type of regulation; namely those regulations which if the Clause is left unamended will have the force of law in Britain merely on the ipse dixit of the Commission. That type of regulation is on the face of it bureaucratic, with no saving processes of democracy in its enactment, not even the consideration and imprimatur of the Council of Ministers. The Committee may feel, and I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will feel, that we should have some form of parliamentary control over this type of regulation.
Amendment 78 would provide this by incorporating the necessity for approval in draft by Resolution of each House before the Commission's regulations could obtain the force of law. If my main Amendment, No. 79, is carried, the question falls and there is no need for Amendment No. 78, nor for the great mass of Amendments that we are discussing with it. If, unhappily, it should be rejected I would submit that the minimum safeguard for an essentially bureaucratic and unrepresentative form of regulation is the necessity of approval in draft as set out in the Amendment.
I have sought to deal with what is a mammoth subject as fully as time allows and as briefly as the subject permits. I have spoken for perhaps nearly 50 minutes, and according to House of Commons conventions I should apologise for the length of my observations.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Not at all.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. When I reflect on the hours I have taken in the courts on matters complex and important but mini-scule in comparison with these transcendental issues, the hours devoted to the


laborious argument and presentation of the case and canvassing the issues without the court feeling that any less presentation would have met its needs, I am minded rather to apologise that my presentation of this case has not been more ample and more detailed. If there appear to be gaps in it I hope hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will accept them as defects of presentation and not evidence of demerit in the case. The case on its merits is overwhelming.

Mr. Shore: First, I assure the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) that he has not trespassed on the time of the Committee. We all heard him with great pleasure and considerable profit. Not only has he threaded his way through the maze of Amendments which we have before us in this single swollen group under consideration in a way which was helpful to us all, but he has laid out the main arguments on which we shall engage in our discussion of this important subsection. I am not a lawyer, and he has helped me a great deal by bringing into the argument matters with which he is familiar, in particular the real case law, as distinct from some of the rather bogus references to case law which we have had in the past, on the extent to which the law of the treaty has been tested in the courts. This, too, has helped to throw light, particularly on the case which involved the law of the German constitution in relation to Community law.
I begin by asserting, rather as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did, that we are starting today to consider the extent to which we in Britain shall cease to be self-governing if we enter the European Communities on the basis of the Bill. Subsection (1) is only one part of the wider transfer of political power involved in Clauses1, 2 and 3. If the words in Clause 2(1) mean what they appear to mean, we are enacting that Parliament henceforth will cease to be sovereign and that this country in important areas of policy covered by self-enacting law will cease to be independent. Clause 2(1) asks us to accept without further enactment, without further approval, or even consideration by Parliament, Community legislation as provided for in the Community treaties. The Clause imports into our law the 1,200 regulations in the 42 volumes that the Communities have

manufactured during the past 13 years. It goes much further than that; we have to swallow holus-bolus not only all those past regulations but the outpourings of the future.
I do not believe that any hon. Member on either side of the Committee or on either side of the proposal for entry to the Common Market welcomes this transfer of legislative power from Westminster to European institutions. We do not welcome it if only because we are aware that in transferring our own rights and powers we are at the same time transferring the rights and powers of the British people, powers which we have on loan, powers which we know the British people have not been asked to part with, and powers which we have every reason to believe they do not wish us to abandon.
The key question, which I shall come to later, is whether this transfer of power, particularly in the form in which it occurs in Clause 2(1), is necessary for the purpose of entry to the Common Market. But I want first to deal with two preliminary questions; the size of the area of our sovereignty which Clause 2(1) seeks to transfer to Community institutions, and whether or not our concern about this proposal has been misconceived.
5.15 p.m.
On the first point, one of our major difficulties is that the area of self-enacting Community law is nowhere clearly defined in the Bill or in any Government memorandum. I am aware of the contents of the 1967 White Paper, and I make only two points about it. First, the White Paper, curiously enough, has never been debated in the House of Commons. It is a statement, no doubt drawn up with the best advice then available to the Government of that time, which was not available for the great discussions on our proposal to apply for entry. The vote was taken at the beginning of May, 1967, and the White Paper was published on the last day of May of that year. With the almost immediate rejection by the French of Britain's proposals to open negotiations, there was no reason to pursue the 1967 White Paper, so it was not debated.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Rippon): Just to get the record straight, I am sure the right hon.


Gentleman will agree that the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister expressly stated in 1970 that the White Paper still held good.

Mr. Shore: He was not referring to that White Paper.

Mr. Rippon: Yes, he was.

Mr. Shore: I do not think so, but we can check that. I wish the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not be quite so defensive; I am trying to make a few points—[Interruption.]. If I heard correctly, that was an extraordinary thing to say. I heard a word which the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not normally bandy about.

Mr. Rippon: I described the right hon. Gentleman's statement as dishonest. I should not have done that, and I withdraw it unreservedly. We have gone over all this so often; I think we can stand on the previous statements that have been made.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. Is it not entirely out of order for a Minister on the Front Bench to use a phrase of this character? After all, Ministers sit there, do they not, Mr. Mallalieu, under a Prime Minister who made a totally dishonest statement about the full-hearted consent of the British people?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Whatever was said has been withdrawn.

Mr. Shore: Thank you, Mr. Mallalieu. I accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's withdrawal.
The essential point that I am seeking to make is that the White Paper was not debated. Secondly, if anyone today attempted to draw up a White Paper on the legal and constitutional implications of membership, it would be a very different White Paper—at least I hope it would be longer and would cover a number of matters which it was not possible for the authors of the 1967 White Paper to cover; in particular, the immense constitutional and legal implications of the Treaty of Luxembourg, 1970, when the Community for the first time acquired the right to tax.
We know about the contents of the 41 volumes of regulations in the Community, and they are some indication of the scope of the problems. We have had no opportunity to discuss the insertion of Community law into our own law and policies affecting our existing arrangements. Nowhere have we been told the meaning of the various terms used in the subsections as to "rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions". There are definitions in Part II of Schedule 1, but they relate only to some of the terms used. They are definitions which in certain cases singularly fail to define. Furthermore, despite our pleadings, we have been unable to explore the Schedule as much as we wished to do. Had we been able to do so, we would have had a clearer idea of the meaning of these terms and, above all, in relation to this Clause.
Nor, as we have discovered, is there any firm frontier to the area in which in future self-enacting law can be contained. Existing self-enacting law derives from provisions in the main treaties, but can be added to if they are ancillary to the main treaties. In other words, they can be extended in some areas without the requirement even to notify the Parliaments of member States—and in other ways, all that is required is the affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
In this respect, future Community law can be likened to a growth within our body politic. The cancer will grow as it has grown already in the past 13 years. Moreover, under the ancillary provisions the original growth can establish secondaries in other parts of our legal system. That is the extent and potential of growth of this self-enacting legislation.
It will not do for anyone to pretend that the matters covered by self-enacting provisions are small and unimportant. They cover not only a large part of our food and agriculture and some of our basic industries, but also the movement of people and money—and more besides. Moreover, if the Government were more frank and told us what is in the pipeline in Brussels, we should quickly see the many new areas in which Community law is already programmed to advance. Let there be no doubt that this is important already and will increase in importance in the years ahead.
There have been other arguments seeking to lull us as to the importance of what is involved. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) in Committee last Wednesday argued that those of us who fear and express concern about the transfer of sovereignty and power in this Bill—and indeed the Government themselves—are all victims of an illusion. He argued that the sovereignty of Parliament cannot be lost or abandoned. That is the heart point he was making—that it is not possible for Parliament to do this.
The same point was made by Professor Wade in an article in The Times on 18th April in which he said:
The one thing that our legally omnipotent Parliament cannot do is to fetter its own continuing sovereignty over our law.
In other words, he was saying the same thing as my right hon. Friend did on Wednesday.
I was not at the time convinced by my right hon. Friend, although I listened to his speech with great enjoyment. The reductio ad absurdum of his argument would be for Parliament to delegate all powers and functions to European agencies and then still claim, and no doubt claim correctly in constitutional law, that Parliament is omnipotent. It is a matter of degree. The argument advanced on this front by strong pro-Marketeers is matched by the argument of other pro-Marketeers, not about the legal aspects of sovereignty but about the real power which is involved in our accession under these terms.
The point which has been asserted on many occasions is that we have nothing to lose in terms of real power, on the ground not only that this House does not control Ministers effectively at present but that Government and Parliament in Britain no longer command events. If we combine the two arguments, no problem can exist since it disappears between the two contentions. Those who hold this view will sleep happily at night, and Clause 2(1) will cause no distress to them.
I believe that both assertions about sovereignty are wrong. What matters is not the abstract claim about the sovereignty of Parliament but the hard fact of who makes and interprets the laws. It is the transfer of the law-making and

law-interpreting power to European agencies which is so important in these Clauses. I do not accept the view that we have now become so powerless that we have no influence or authority in dealing with external or internal events.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: If the second hypothesis, that we have not de factopower, is wrong, surely it is still possible for the first hypothesis to be right; namely the hypothesis advanced by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) that we cannot give away our sovereignty. Therefore, the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) appears to be agreeing with his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Shore: I am saying that as a purely legal and theoretical point it may be true that if it is said that Parliament's sovereignty cannot be abandoned, delegated or transferred to others, then by definition Parliament cannot do so. But that is not making a meaningful statement about who makes laws and interprets them and about the power and control of power through Government machinery in the real world. One has not made any significant statement about either proposition. One has said something that may be unchallengeable, but it is meaningless.
5.30 p.m.
I come back to what I think is the better part of Professor Wade's article, where, before going off to pursue this hare of abstract and notional sovereignty, he made the point:
There is nothing new in abdicating sovereignty—the dismantling of the British Empire was a gigantic exercise in exactly that. But it is undoubtedly revolutionary for this country to accept as law, in advance and automatically, the dictates of the Community's executive organs, the Council and the Commission.
The judgment of the most eminent legal authority whom we have today is that it is no more, no less than revolutionary.
Professor Wade went on:
Acceptance of the European Court is in form less revolutionary, but may have even more profound repercussions. For the court has proclaimed on many occasions that the Treaty of Rome does not, like ordinary treaties, merely impose obligations on the signatory states: it has brought into being a 'new legal order', i.e. a body of 'community law' which must, if community is to mean anything, apply


proprio vigore in all member states and take precedence over their internal law in any case of conflict.

The Solicitor-General: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the following passage as an accurate paraphrase of what he has just read with astonishment:
The constitutional innovation would lie in the acceptance in advance as part of the law of the United Kingdom of provisions to be made in the future by instruments issued by the Community institutions—a situation for which there is no precedent in this country"?
Does that not demonstrate exactly how well known all these apparently astonishing propositions have been for at least the last five years?

Mr. Shore: I have no objection to the Solicitor-General's relating that passage to the point made in Professor Wade's article. The White Paper is written in very dull and workmanlike prose. The passage that I have just read brings out the real significance of it——

Mr. Ridley: They mean the same.

Mr. Shore: Of course they do. The article that I have quoted interprets the significance of that part of the 1967 White Paper, and I have no hesitation in linking the two. What I want to establish is whether it is right. Is Professor Wade correct in his judgment about the importance of the matter? As the Committee will recall, I was arguing on this occasion not with the Treasury Bench. I was having a continuing debate with absent friends who had advanced a different viewpoint slightly earlier.
I turn to the question which I said at the beginning of my speech I would face It is a key question; namely, whether Clause 2(1) is necessary for the purposes of the Common Market, and whether the Common Market requires this kind of self-enacting law?
I deal first with the existing regulations. Clearly, we do not have to swallow them whole, as the Government intend us to do. Clearly, we could have had substantial and separate enactments for the main matters concerned which would have given us the opportunity to examine and amend the contents of these volumes.
A comment of the Prime Minister winding up the Second Reading debate was interesting on this point. He did not really deny that it was possible separately to enact the regulations which

already existed. He made the point, which I found odd, that
… what Parliament would be asked to do would be to re-enact all these matters which presumably we would not wish to change, but rather to keep, because they are our existing law; but we would not be able to change that part which arose from Community law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 748.]
The right hon. Gentleman was making the point that all of this was a pointless exercise. However, I want to distinguish between our ability as a Parliament to amend if it had taken the form of Bills and the other point which lay within the Prime Minister's words, that his conduct of the negotiations was such that he could not change any of those regulations without being in serious dispute with President Pompidou and the other negotiating partners. It is a very important distinction.
As though to confirm my assertion, in his last speech in the referendum campaign the President of France said that one of the reasons why he wanted the French people to vote for Britain's entry was that Britain had accepted all the regulations made under the agricultural policy and all the matters relating to the Common Market. So much for the existing regulations.
I turn to the future and to regulations which may be made under Clause 2(1). Here I want to recall the words of the Chancellor of the Duchy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had this to say about the future in the course of our Second Reading debate:
… we shall of course play a full part in the formulation of future directly applicable Community instruments—as of Community instruments which do not have direct effect. … Before a Community instrument is made, the consultative processes are thorough, lengthy and largely open.
So, clearly, they are not locked away. They can be got at and influenced. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to speak of regulations which would come to the Council of Ministers:
A United Kingdom Minister will sit on the Council where it is recognised that decisions are not taken which may conflict with the vital national interests of a member State. … Where there are conflicting interests to reconcile, the period between initial formulation of a draft proposal by the Commission and its eventual adoption by the Council may be long, stretching even in many cases to years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 273–4.]


The right hon. and learned Gentleman was making the point that not only can we get at regulations but that normally there is ample time between drafting and their finalisation in which influence can be brought to bear, certainly at the Council of Ministers. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us so often, because we have a built-in national veto in the end nothing can come up at the Council of Ministers of which we disapprove.

Mr. Deakins: With regard to the safeguards against regulations passed by the Council of Ministers, my right hon. Friend will be aware, although it is not entirely clear from the Treaty of Rome, that the Commission issues regulations directly binding member States. Would the safeguards that my right hon. Friend read from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech cover regulations issued by the Commission?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend anticipated the trend of my thinking. I will try to answer that in a few moments' time. First, I want to consider and complete my consideration of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech of 15th February and the process, as he saw it, of bringing authority to bear on the formulation of self-enacting regulations.
The House will recall that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, having made it clear that Ministers on the Council could influence self-enacting regulations and in the last resort veto them, having told us that there would be time in which all those things could be considered, then surprised us by adding a new ad hoc committee. He then proposed that he could get the House to participate through some form of ad hoc committee in order to influence the shape and the content of regulations.

Mr. English: Would my right hon. Friend agree all the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to do was copy into the wording of English law the provisions of the German Act ratifying the Treaty of Rome which provided for the Bundestag to be informed of regulations so that it could discuss them before the Minister went back to the Council of Ministers to finalise them.

Mr. Shore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. I hesitate to

confirm it because I have not had the opportunity of studying the German procedure. It sounds as though something similar could occur here. What we have to consider is whether it would be effective and whether this is the best way of bringing parliamentary scrutiny to bear.
If the Chancellor of the Duchy's words meant anything at all—I have quoted a few of them—they mean that Britain's representatives would have an opportunity to consider future Community regulations and veto those they did not like. That I think is clear. The Solicitor-General made the same point, this time in the context of Community treaties, on 8th March, 1972. He dealt then in particular with treaties under Article 113, trade treaties, which would not come before the House.
He told us that those treaties would go to the Council of Ministers. Although the provision was to qualify majority veto, he took the right hon. Gentleman's view that the qualified majority veto no longer exists and everything has to be unanimous. Such a treaty could also be stopped within the Council of Ministers if it was offensive to us. To complete that line of argument we got the further astonishing proposal that we, too, could be brought into it and the ad hoc committee could look at draft treaties as well as trade regulations. All of this will be within the recollection of the Committee.
If the Chancellor of the Duchy and the Solicitor-General are correct and if there is a British veto on the Council of Ministers affecting both treaties and regulations, it is possible for Parliament to be meaningfully consulted with the help of an ad hoc committee before Community drafts are finalised. If this is the case, is there a transfer of legal and treaty-making power to the Community institution?
There is a deeper point here, and I would like to put it to the Committee. The self-enacting powers under Article 189 as reflected in Clause 2(1) of the Bill were part of the original design of the Rome Treaty. They expressed the supra-nationalism that its first and founder authors thought both desirable and necessary. The Rome Treaty required not


only common institutions at a Common Market level but a manner and method of decision-making which could in the last resort override separate national interest. The supra-national decisions were to be buttressed with the whole force of Community law and courts.
The events that occurred in the beginning of 1966 which led to the Luxembourg Agreement, when France asserted she would no longer accept majority decision-making in the Community and would claim the right of national veto whenever national interests were involved, changed the whole nature of the European Economic Community. As we know, the Prime Minister and the Government have explicitly endorsed President Pompidou's view of the nature of the treaty and the importance of the national veto. They have said it not once but on many occasions. They have asserted this because they think it is the only way in which they can make the proposition tolerable to so many members on both sides.
5.45 p.m.
If the Government mean that they have a national veto and if it is true that supra-national design and ambition has been abandoned, why do the Government still try to insert into this Bill and into our law a principle which is contrary to their own public and political assertions and profoundly repugnant not only to the House but to the British people and all our traditions? Why do they do it?
They cannot have it both ways. Either self-regulating law and supra-nationalism are necessary, in which case let them drop the pretence of the national veto, or they are not necessary, so let them get rid of this odious Clause. There may be a further complication. It may be that the Government want to have Clause 2(1) not because it is necessary to the treaty or the purposes of the Common Market but because it undoubtedly transfers power from this House to Ministers. The whole business of parliamentary scrutiny and control is dreadfully weakened. The Executive, as the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) has said, gains great power from this change. Would it not be intolerable for this Bill under the guise of

abandoning powers in the interests of joining the European Community to take from this House powers it would otherwise enjoy. This is a totally unacceptable development.
The European Commission and how far it can fit in is a more difficult matter. The attempt by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) to raise this matter and get it properly discussed on Second Reading and subsequently has not met with any adequate reply from the Government. We have not had laid out and put before us to what extent and where in the treaty the business of regulation-making belongs to the Commission alone and not, as is normally the case, the combination of the Commission and the Council of Ministers. If the Government argue that the requirement of Clause 2(1) is to transfer the law-making power to the Commission and that is why they needed Clause 2(1), I think that, too, would be quite unacceptable to both sides of the House.
I will not develop the argument further, because it would take me some time. However, I hope that we shall be given an opportunity to discuss it. I regret that we have not been able to discuss separately and properly the question of the Commission, which would have arisen on Amendment No. 78. That goes to the centre of this complex maze of decision-making processes which comprise the governing bodies of the European Communities.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will my right hon. Friend give me some information on the point about the Commission and the Council? I understand that the very purpose of the House of Commons is of itself consultation on legislation before the Crown actually legislates. If we transfer legislative functions either to the Commission or to the Council, there is to be consultation, about which we have heard. However, are the proceedings of either the Commission or the Council of Ministers set out on public record in the same way as the OFFICIAL REPORT of our proceedings so that people can see that such consultation and consideration has taken place and can see what has been said?

Mr. Shore: I am sure that if we had this information it would enable us to


form a judgment. My hon. Friend is right in making the point, which I believe lies at the back of his remarks, that consultation is no substitute for proper parliamentary scrutiny and process.
I do not wish to be misunderstood. My attack on Clause 2(1) was not to end with the conclusion that I thought the arrangements proposed would be satisfactory, but rather to point out that this puny way of inserting a degree of parliamentary control was unacceptable to Parliament. My point is that it is not necessary to have Clause 2(1) and that legislation bringing us into line with what is required of us in terms of the European Communities could be carried through in other more acceptable and respectable ways. That is the point that I am making and the conclusion that I am reaching.

Mr. Dell: Is my right hon. Friend now making the point which I have previously made: that what is involved here is not national sovereignty, that national sovereignty is not in practice significantly eroded by membership of the Common Market, which is consistent with national sovereignty, but that the fundamental objection to the Bill is that the way in which it is brought before the House erodes parliamentary control over the Executive? It is that point at which we should be directing our attack.

Mr. Shore: My right hon. Friend, whose views on these matters I have often heard and occasionally debated, is absolutely right about the parliamentary sovereignty argument. We all agree that it is far beyond the call of duty to do what so many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides wish to do. In other words, to set up a common agricultural policy and a customs union in Europe and extend it to the four applicant countries does not require this degree of parliamentary self-abnegation, this surrender of parliamentary rights. It is only if we consider that we are joining a political union with a supera-national purpose that this kind of self-abnegation is necessary, and it is the Government's emphatic contention that they have no intention of establishing a political union of any kind.
Like the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, but, I fear, with less excuse, I must apologise for taking so much time to make my remarks.

Our strategy in amending the Clause will be fairly clear. We do not believe that Clause 2(1) is necessary. We think that it is thoroughly undesirable. Therefore, we want to get rid of it. If we are unable to cut it out of the Bill altogether, we shall seek in further Amendments to reduce the evil, to minimise the change, in all the different ways and forms which our other Amendments suggest.

Sir Robin Turton: I have great sympathy with the intervention by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell). For once, I rather disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) who talked about Amendment No. 79 as being emasculating. I regard it as a form of vasectomy. The difference is that one can still be potent after vasectomy by having another operation.
I believe that the Government, whether we want to go into the Common Market or not, have adopted the wrong method to effect our entry. The whole system of parliamentary scrutiny of legislation has not been so completely set aside as it is in the Clause since the middle of the seventeenth century. Not since then has Parliament been treated in so cavalier a fashion. In effect, we are photocopying 2,500 or, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, 1,500 instruments into our legislation without allowing Parliament or the people to have copies. I hope that the Government will reconsider this point before the end of the debate.
I want to make a special request to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or more probably to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. Whatever differences we may have about the Bill, whatever the form of the subsection, I hope they will agree that there shall be a procedure for consolidating the laws effected by our entry. It is very much like Amendment No. 7. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead's Amendment covers the first part of the operation. I have been looking at it more from the aspect of the procedure of the House of Commons. The consolidation Bill would proceed under Standing Order 87a to a Committee and have the expedited procedure in the House. This would not be a delaying procedure but it would enable


those who practise the law, and the people of the country, to know what changes have been made as a result of our accession to the Treaty of Rome.
I now turn to the Amendments, which I am advocating, which seek to improve subsection (1). One of the great difficulties about the subsection is its ambiguity. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East, put it extremely clearly, and I do not want to waste the time of the Committee by repeating anything he said. The first ambiguity concerns what is meant by "obligation" in subsection (1), which comes again in subsection (2). My right hon. and learned Friend asked why we should have liability and obligation. Although it has not been defined, if the Bill is passed in this form, there will be three kinds of obligation. First there will be the self-enacting obligation under subsection (1). Secondly there will be the obligation that arises out of a directive in subsection (2) which will require legislation by Statutory Instrument. Thirdly there will be the obligation arising out of the exceptions in Schedule 2 which will require legislation. I should have thought that from the point of view of removing ambiguity it would have been far better if my right hon. and learned Friend had used different words for the self-enacting obligation in subsection (1) as distinct from the other two obligations that are covered by subsection (2), or will be covered by legislation.

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]

6.0 p.m.

I come now to my Amendments Nos. 314 and 56. I should like to ask the Solicitor-General what he means by "'enforceable Community right' and similar expressions". The odd thing is that the words "enforceable Community right", which are printed in the subsection as if they were a quotation, do not occur at all in the Bill, and I have looked through as many of the treaties as I could to find whether these words appear in the treaties but I have not discovered them. I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that to have the words "enforceable Community right", which do not appear in the Bill, defined here and not in the definition Clause and then go on to say "and similar expressions" is making

this proposed Act of Parliament something that all lawyers in all countries will jeer at afterwards. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend, if he really wants to have a definition in subsection (1), to spell out exactly what he is trying to define. This has puzzled a great many lawyers—I have read opinions on this—who have knowledge which I do not possess.

My third point refers to Amendment No. 78, to which I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East have put our names. This concerns the question why some of the regulations of the Community cannot go through the parliamentary process by statutory instrument in the House of Commons. The Bundestag has done this and it is an effective way of securing scrutiny as the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) interjected. The whole problem of the price of wheat, if I remember correctly, was dealt with effectively, as was the Mansholt Plan, by the Bundestag and the law was changed as a result of the draft regulations going before the Bundestag before they were presented to Ministers.

Whatever our view on going into or staying out of the Community, the kind of subsection (1) that I think the Committee would like to see would be one that limited the self-enacting part of it to the barest minimum. I think all of us would agree that certain rights should be self-enacting, but where it is an obligation in the form of taxation Parliament is very loth to see its powers of scrutiny removed. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider whether he can give a definite pledge that such cases will be brought to Parliament in draft form before they are agreed to by the Commission and will be treated under our delegated legislation procedure.

I did not quite understand the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) when he was talking about the ad hoccommittee. I thought that committee was to advise how the Government should deal with these matters in the Bill by means of parliamentary procedure. I always felt that the defect of the proposition put forward in the Second Reading debate by my two right hon. Friends was that they were rather too late and that they had proposed the ad hoc committee to advise them on the problem of


how Clause 2 should be framed; but I did not think anybody was suggesting that the ad hoc committee should be a standing or sessional committee to deal with these problems after we had entered the Community.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Would the right hon. Gentleman be disposed to agree that these matters are of such great importance that they ought to be dealt with expressly by an Act of Parliament rather than by the amendment of Standing Orders in the House of Commons?

Sir Robin Turton: That is what I was saying, that I did not understand that the ad hoc committee was to deal with the amendment of Standing Orders; I thought its purpose was to advise my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister exactly what form of parliamentary scrutiny we required and what must be enacted by legislation and not left to Standing Orders, because if the ad hoc committee said that certain matters could not be dealt with by Statutory Instrument in draft form but certain other matters could, quite clearly the latter would require to be enacted by Statute and not left to Standing Order, because without the statutory form the Standing Order would have no effect at all.
That is why I hope that between now and Report my right hon. and learned Friend will consider this matter of parliamentary control. He knows that I have a different view on the wisdom of entering the Community, but for the purpose of this argument the whole of my speech has been directed to trying to make entry work as based on the parliamentary form. One must remember that all the member countries took some form of precaution to preserve their parliamentary rights—except the French, who do not pay quite as much attention to parliamentary control as the other members of the Community. What the Dutch did and what the Germans have done we ought to be doing now in the Bill. I am quite certain that were we, unhappily, to enter, the other members of the Community would respect us if we put in proper parliamentary control. Without some Amendments such as this, Clause 2(1) is really a defiance of the whole parliamentary tradition of this country. For that reason, unless it is amended I must fight it.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) did an immense service to the Committee this afternoon by making perfectly clear the legal and constitutional effects of the Bill, which the Government have most notably failed to do up to now. There really is no doubt, as the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) has just said, that the subsection as it stands would do more damage to parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary control than any subsection of any Bill ever introduced into the House of Commons. Whether one is for or against it, I do not think that can be denied. It is this part of the Bill which takes away from the British people a substantial power to legislate over their own affairs and gives it to the Council of Ministers and the Commission in Brussels. There is no doubt about that, as I shall establish presently.
This, therefore, seems to me the appropriate moment for the Committee to examine the extent of the power—and "power" is one of the key words in the subsection—that is being taken away from the British people, and the undemocratic character of the institution to which those powers are being surrendered. Even some hon. Members—including, apparently, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), who has not stayed for an answer—do not seem fully to understand what the EEC constitution is or how it works in practice.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East was right to bring us back to Article 189 which will be given the force of law in this country by the subsection. Article 189 states—and I emphasise the words—that
the Council and the Commission"—
there is no doubt about this—
shall make regulations and issue directives, take decisions, make recommendations or give opinions.
That is to say, there is also the power to make regulations.
As we have heard, a regulation is binding in its entirety and takes direct effect in each member State without further enactment, as it is described in the subsection. A directive is binding upon each member State to which it is directed while giving the national


Government the choice of method of application. A decision is binding in its entirety on those to whom it is directed.
There are two vital features of that article as it is enforced by the subsection. First, the Council and the Commission are given all these powers, including self-executing regulations. If there were any doubt about that, it is made clear by Article 155, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not quote. It says, among other things, that the Commission shall
have its own power of decision"—
that is to say, without any reference to the Council of Ministers.
It needs only a cursory glance at the famous 41 volumes of regulations, decisions and directives made so far by the EEC to see that a large number of them, including a number of the self-executing regulations, are made by the Commission and have never been before the Council, let alone any Parliament, or, therefore, before any elected representatives of the people in any country. The essence of the EEC is legislation by officials meeting in private—that is to say, bureaucracy in the most literal sense of the word.
The Commission has far greater powers, because not merely does it make a large number of decisions, but in the great majority of cases the Council can make decisions only on a proposal by the Commission. I suggest, therefore, that the Committee and the country ought to take a rather closer look at the Commission to which these sweeping powers over British affairs are to be handed.

Mr. Deakins: My right hon. Friend is not a lawyer, nor am I. Is he right in his interpretation of Article 155 of the Treaty of Rome that the power to make a decision is the same power legally as the power to issue a regulation implementing that decision?

Mr. Jay: There is no doubt from Article 189 that the power to issue a regulation resides with the Commission, and we have had that confirmed in our debates by the Solicitor-General. I take it, therefore, that the word "decision" in Article 155 is not used in a technical sense and refers to regulations, decisions and directives, but I shall be glad to be corrected on that by any lawyer.
6.15 p.m.
If I may return to the nature of the Commission itself, the first thing that emerges, and which still seems to be not fully grasped by many people, including some in the House of Commons, is that there are no national representatives on the Commission. Even the Prime Minister recently fell into error in supposing that there would be a British representative on the Commission. He did so when addressing the Tory faithful at a Central Hall rally. He talked about our future representatives on the Commission. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong about that, as he is about many of his other ideas about the EEC.
The Treaty of Rome is explicit about this, too. It says in Article 157:
The Members of the Commission shall be completely independent in the performance of their functions, in the general interest of the Community.
In the performance of their duties, they shall neither seek nor take instructions from any Government or from any other body …. Each Member State undertakes to respect this principle and not to seek to influence the members of the Commission in the performance of their task.
That is not what one understands by national representation on a genuine international body such as EFTA, OECD or the United Nations.
What the system really is is taxation and legislation without representation, but we shall no doubt be told, as we were last night by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham who has not stayed to discover the facts, that although this is in the holy writ as inscribed in the treaty, it does not really work out like that in practice. The real power, we are told, is with the Council of Ministers and the national Governments, and the practice is different from the theory. That is what we have heard quite often. Even if that were true, I do not think that the intention not to observe the treaty is a strong reason for signing it, but it is not true.
How does the EEC really work in practice, and not in theory? I have here an excellent publication to which I think the Committee has not paid enough attention. Entitled "How the European Communities' Institutions Work", it was published by the European Communities' Press and Information Department in 1971. It is written by M. Emile Noel, O.B.E., Secretary General of the Commission of the


European Communities, and he presumably should know. I suspect that M. Noel, who holds these views, knows even more about the subject than do my right hon. Friends the Members for Cheetham and for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) who spoke about this the other night.
M. Noel says on page 2, quite correctly, when talking about the Commission that
throughout their tenure of office the members must act in full independence both of the Governments and of the Council …".
They are independent of the Council. I think that we should note that, because it does not seem to be fully understood. That is different from what is taken for granted here as the relationship between the Cabinet and the Civil Service, or between the Council of Ministers and officials in any other international organisation to which we belong.
M. Noel goes on to say:
The Council cannot remove any members
of the Commission
from office; only the Parliament can if it wishes …
That is to say, the rather curious Parliament of the EEC can do this; but in practice it never does, because it has to dismiss the whole Commission at one fell swoop if it wishes to do anything at all.
Next we are told—and I emphasise that this is M. Noel and not myself giving this information—that in practice the Commission
is the initiator of Community policy.
I ask the Committee to note that. It is not the Council of Ministers, but the unrepresentative Commission, which is not answerable to Ministers, which initiates policy. Far from the Commission's powers having decreased since the early days of the Treaty of Rome, as we have been led to believe, they have greatly increased. In M. Noel's words:
The Commission is directly invested by the Treaties with wide executive powers. In addition, it now possesses substantial extra powers conferred on it by the Council, mostly in connection with EEC matters"—
as opposed to matters concerned with other treaties
for securing the implementation of enactments based on the Treaty

—another form of legislation by the Commission.
M. Noel then candidly states:
Figures speak louder than words. During 1970 alone the Commission enacted 2,448 regulations, mostly relating to the common agricultural policy.
I am told that at the time of the Second Reading of this Measure the Parliamentary Liberal Party, the members of which have not troubled to attend our debates today, did not even know that the Commission had power to legislate on its own without reference to the Council.
But this is not the whole story. M. Noel also tells us:
Under the Rome Treaties any measure of general application or of a certain level of importance has to be enacted by the Council of Ministers, but except in a very few cases the Council can only proceed upon a proposal by the Commission. The Commission has then a permanent duty to initiate action. If it submits no proposal, the Council is paralysed and the forward march of the Community comes to a halt.
To leave the matter in absolutely no doubt, the Secretary General adds:
In the Commission's favour there is for a start the fact that it draws up the proposal on which the Council is to deliberate, and only on the basis of that proposal can the Council deliberate at all.
I have quoted enough to show that anyone who imagines that in practice, as opposed to in theory, there is anything in the EEC resembling cabinet government, let alone representative government, is displaying great ignorance of the way in which the Community works and of the whole organisation of the EEC.
But even that is not the whole story. To make absolutely certain that most of the real power is in practice with the Commission and not with the unhappy Council of Ministers, M. Noel in his publication invokes Article 149 of the Treaty, which is one of the
key components in the institutional structure"—
they are M. Noel's words—and which provides that
When pursuant to the Treaty of Rome the Council acts on a proposal of the Commission it"—
that is the Council—
shall, where an amendment is involved, act only by means of a unanimous vote. If the Ministers are unanimous they can therefore decide on their own authority, even should their decision be contrary to the Commission's


proposal. On the other hand, they can decide by a majority only if their decision is in line with the Commission's proposal.
In other words, if the member States are not at one they cannot take a majority decision unless it entails accepting the proposal in toto without amendment. Only the Commission can amend it. Again, therefore, the difference between what we and they understand as cabinet government or government by responsible Ministers is glaring indeed. Taking together the Treaty of Rome, this Clause and that description by the Secretary General of the Commission and how things work in practice, it is clear that substantial power of legislation as well as of executive decision rests with the Commission rather than with the Council.
I come finally to the Commission itself and the question of decision by majority vote. There is no veto there. In M. Noel's words,
Although its decision can be taken by a majority, many are in fact unanimous.
One would accept that. He goes on to say:
Where a vote is taken by a majority the minority always abides by the majority decision, which thereupon constitutes the stance of the whole Commission.
That does not sound like the actions of some British political parties, but it is interesting to know the way in which the Commission operates, information which is vital for this debate because it is clear that there is no question of a veto in the Commission.
That, according to the Secretary General of the Commission, is how this institution works in practice, although some people still do not seem to have grasped its full character. It is a travesty of cabinet, responsible or representative government as we know it. This is the body to which we would be handing over power if we accepted the Clause and particularly subsection (1). That in itself is a powerful reason for the Committee rejecting these provisions and accepting at any rate the principle Amendment which we are debating.

Mr. Rippon: The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) underlined on this occasion, as he has on many other occasions, that we are dealing with the really basic legal consequence of membership of the Communities and the

acceptance of the directly applicable principle for certain Community provisions, past and future. There is no escaping the fact that this principle forms a central provision of the Bill. It has been analysed and considered in our earlier debates, both on the question of the Bill and on the question of accession.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), in a characteristically powerful oration of the kind we have heard on the Bill on more than several occasions, was perfectly frank. He said that if we were to accept Amendment No. 79 we would emasculate the Bill. There is a slight area of controversy between him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) as to the exact medical term that might be most appropriate, but I think that my right hon. and learned Friend, as often in these matters of definition, is not far short of the truth.
This is in fact a wrecking Amendment, and that is the whole purpose of those who tabled it. [Interruption.] They are challenging now, as they have challenged before—this is the purpose of Amendment No. 79—the whole principle of the Bill.

Mr. Michael Foot: I am anxious to clear up a matter which has featured prominently in our debates. If that is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's claim and if "wrecking" is the label he puts on this Amendment, may I ask why he thinks that this and other Amendments have been selected by the Chair? How does he reconcile this selection with the ruling of the Chair which he supported in the Lobby? Before describing this as a wrecking Amendment, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman please explain himself?

Mr. Rippon: It is not for me to comment on the selection of Amendments by the Chair. I was referring specifically to Amendment No. 79, which I regard as a proposal going to the heart and centre of the Bill. It may be perfectly in order; it would not involve an amendment of the treaty as such. These are not matters for me. I simply said that it goes to the very principle of the Bill.

Mr. Foot: We are anxious to clear this matter up because if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is holding to what


he said—that he regards this as a wrecking Amendment—and if he does not regard it as a "nuts and bolts" Amendment, to use the phrase of the Chairman of Ways and Means, we may wish to raise the matter later, particularly as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster went into the Lobby on precisely this question.
I therefore suggest, to enable us to put our debate perfectly in order and so that this whole question need not be raised again, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should withdraw his suggestion that this is a wrecking Amendment. Unless he does that we do not propose that the matter shall be disposed of in this manner. We do not propose to accept the situation in which a ruling was given by the Chair—a ruling to which we strongly objected but which we have accepted—and in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman can flout that ruling.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Rippon: Nor do I accept that definition of what I said. We went into this matter in one of the votes of censure in the Committee stage on the Chairman's ruling. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has been here throughout the discussion and he has heard what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East and the right hon. Member for Battersea, North have said. If he prefers the description which my right hon. and learned Friend applies to what is after all his own Amendment—that it emasculates the Bill—well and good. It is sufficient for me to say that it goes right to the core of our membership of the Community. There is nothing new——

Mr. English: On a point of order, Sir Alfred. To take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), is it not absolutely clear beyond any doubt, and it has been made clear in a whole day's debate, that the principle upon which the Chair has selected Amendments is on the ground that they do not wreck the Bill and would not prevent us from acceding, were they to be carried, to the European Communities.
Is it not therefore clear that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is out

of order in all his recent remarks, because he is challenging either the Chair's good faith or the selection of Amendments, a matter which can be pursued only by a Motion, or he is, alternatively, totally and absolutely wrong.

Mr. John Morris: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has used words which are quite clearly within the memory of the Committee. He said that this was a wrecking Amendment. If these words are used and if they are allowed to stand, they are a reflection upon the choice of Amendments by the Chair. The Chancellor of the Duchy has one course open to him and that is to tell the Committee frankly and clearly that he used the wrong words and that he should not have used the word "wrecking", and to withdraw and to confess that he has wasted 10 minutes in discussing the matter.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Alfred Broughton): The Chairman of Ways and Means selected these Amendments because he considered they were in order. The description that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has applied is an expression of his personal opinion.

Mr. Rippon: I accept that it was my personal opinion but I do not need to go as far as using the phrase that I used if it is objectionable. I am perfectly prepared to accept that "emasculate" is sufficient for my purpose. I have expressed my opinion as clearly as I can. I think I have caused a lot of agitation because people recognise that this is what the Amendment is all about. The Amendment goes to the very basic legal consequences of our membership of the Community. This has never been in doubt. I freely admitted it in my speech on Second Reading.
There is very little new to be said about the principle involved or, I would submit, on the legislative provision which is needed to give effect to that principle. I said on Second Reading that the concept of direct applicability had been a feature of the Communities from the start. The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to one part of the speech I made but I would simply refer hon. Members to what I said then, particularly from column 271 onwards. I will not read it all again. My right hon. Friend


the Prime Minister reminded the House on the same occasion:
The constitutional position has not changed in any single respect since the negotiations of 1961 when it was very fully discussed in this House time and again. It has not changed since the last Government's White Paper of 1967".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 747.]
The source of the principle and also its general effect and the legislative provision needed to cover it were clearly explained in that White Paper. It was also explained by the then Prime Minister, now Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) in the House on 8th May, 1967, and by Lord Gardiner, then Lord Chancellor, in the House of Lords on the same date. All these quotations are on the record several times.
I had occasion to apologise to the right hon. Member for Stepney about that 1967 White Paper. Of course I should not have called him dishonest. We all know on both sides that he is perfectly sincere and has been for a long time in his opposition to the Bill. As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) said, his opposition is pretty root and branch and it does not give much impression of acceptance on any terms. It would make no difference to an hon. Member's attitude what the terms were in any negotiations if he was not prepared to accept the principle.
There was one matter which I would raise with the right hon. Member for Stepney which is a matter of recollection rather than a question of improper motive, and that is the reaffirmation of the principles of the White Paper in 1970. I suggested that the Leader of the Opposition, then Prime Minister, reaffirmed the principles in 1970. The right hon. Member for Stepney preferred to rest on the assertion that when the vote was taken in 1967 the White Paper was not then available. That is quite accurate. What was available was the speech of the Prime Minister on 8th May and that of the Lord Chancellor on the same date. This discussion has been going on since 1967 and for the record I think I ought to remind the right hon. Member for Stepney what was said. In 1970 the right hon. Member for Huyton, then Prime Minister, was dealing with the White

Paper on the legal and constitutional implications when he replied to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). The hon. Member asked the Prime Minister whether, as a means of estimating the all-inclusive costs of Great Britain entering the Common Market, he would arrange for publication of White Papers, following that on the economic effects to deal with all aspects of the effects on the judiciary, the transferability of labour and the politcal and parliamentary system, if Britain were to enter on the present basis. The then Prime Minister replied:
The 1967 White Paper dealt fully and authoritatively with the legal and constitutional implications of membership of the EEC and the general assessment in that White Paper still holds good."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1970; Vol. 796, c. 98.]
Then, on 2nd March, 1970, the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson), who was then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, explained on behalf of the Government that
As regards the impact of Community legislation on United Kingdom law and practice, the broad conclusion stated in the White Paper of 1967 on legal and constitutional implications of membership (Cmnd. 3301) are still valid."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1970; Vol. 797, c. 5.]
That is why we have left that White Paper on the table. Basically it does not require amendment. Most hon. Members of the Committee accept that this is a matter which has been canvassed fairly fully in general principle in the House over five years.

Mr. Shore: Because of the traditions of the House, and in particular the very great importance in our constitutional history that has been attached to the control of the right to tax and the right to spend, it is not good enough to say when those two new rights were assumed by the Community that a White Paper written two or three years previously had covered the whole matter. That is not so. I agree that it covered a substantial part of the question of giving the Community the right to legislate. It covered that in its description, but it did not deal with a very important new extension of Community rights. I find it very odd that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues do not seem to think it important enough to make this the subject


of a separate and updated publication so that the people of the country, as well as hon. Members on both sides, have the material before them.

Mr. Rippon: We have debated that before. It has been at issue for sometime. The right hon. Gentleman has frequently asserted in our debates that all these things were said in 1967 and were not followed in 1970. They were. That is why we can say in our White Paper that we picked up the hand left by the previous Government. They had accepted the basic provisions of the treaties and so did we, subject to the specific items we had said needed to be negotiated.
Article 189 of the 1957 Treaty has been there since 1957. There are some people, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East, who have continually drawn attention to that, and who have never been in favour of our joining the Communities, largely for the constitutional and legal reasons which he has explained. He has persisted in that opposition, and that is reasonable. We have all accepted that. He is, however, like others on both sides of the Committee, in a minority.
This principle is raised again and again. It is a fundamental principle. We have voted on it again and again. It is reasonable that we should debate it in the context of the Bill, and we have done so. All I am saying is that it is a principle at the heart of the membership of the Communities. It would have been impossible to make a bona fide application to join the Communities unless we accepted it. That is something my right hon. and learned Friend has known from the outset. That is why before the application was made the then Prime Minister and the then Lord Chancellor spelt out in such considerable detail what was involved. What was involved was the principle embodied in the Clause.
Article 2 of the Act annexed to the Treaty of Accession and to the European Coal and Steel Community Council Decision on enlargement commits the acceding States to accept
the provisions of the original Treaties and the Acts adopted by the institutions of the Communities

as binding on them, and to apply them under the conditions laid down in those treaties and in the Act of Accession.
That is our general commitment. It derives, through the negotiations, from paragraphs 19 and 44 of the statement which was made to the Community on 4th July, 1967, by the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on behalf of the last Government, published in Cmnd. 3345. I will not quote that again because we have heard it often enough.
As I said in the debate on Second Reading,
The essence of these provisions"—
the directly applicable provisions—
is that they apply as law within member States without further action on the part of the States themselves. Of themselves, they confer rights and impose obligations to which the national courts have to give effect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 271.]
Subsection (1) embodies in our law this system of directly applicable Community provisions. It does so exactly in the way which was foreseen in the 1967 White Paper, and perhaps even more precisely by Lord Gardiner in his speech of 8th May, 1967. I quoted it then and I will not repeat it.

Mr. Paget: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the point which has been made with very great effect as to why, if this is obligatory on us, it is not obligatory on the Germans or the Dutch, neither of whom have done this?

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Rippon: What they have done is to bring their adherence to the treaty into effect in accordance with their own constitutional procedures. [Interruption.] I take the view that we should introduce our measures in accordance with our own constitutional procedures and not theirs. That is precisely what we are doing. [Interruption.] I shall come a little later to some of the very pertinent points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton).

Mr. Jay: Mr. Jay rose——

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) must not remain standing if the Minister is not prepared to give way.

Mr. Rippon: I shall deal later with the pertinent points of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton about parliamentary procedures. We adopt our own parliamentary procedures though we may derive advantage from studying other people and they may derive advantage from studying us.

Mr. Jay: If it is possible for the Germans, having adhered to the Rome Treaty, to introduce these procedures, will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least agree that they cannot be contrary to the Rome Treaty?

Mr. Rippon: There may be some debate on the German procedures. But what we have discussed before in the Committee and elsewhere is how we conduct our parliamentary affairs in our own way. I dealt with this question—this shows how we are becoming increasingly repetitive in our discussions—in the debate on the Question "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill". I explained then that in previous discussions I had emphasised how the Bill stood on its merits and that any proposals we have made as to the way in which we might deal with these matters simply from the point of view of parliamentary procedure were another matter. We put forward proposals for an ad hoc committee, to consider these matters, not a permanent committee, but something that could have been set up with the approval of the Opposition, through the usual channels. There will be other opportunities and ways in which Parliament may choose to deal with them, not only now but in the future. I have emphasised that we should not deal with them by an Act, because we do not want to bind or fetter future Parliaments as to the way in which they deal with such matters.

Mr. Jay: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer a quite simple question? Are the procedures which the Germans have adopted contrary to the Treaty of Rome?

Mr. Rippon: They have their own procedures and we have ours. We must deal with these matters in our own way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] We can perhaps go into detail as to the way in which each country has ratified the treaty. For example, Luxembourg provided one method of ratification and Germany pro-

vided another. It would take a very long time to go into the methods by which they gave effect to the treaty. But the ultimate result is the same.
It has been suggested that we might have the same sort of observers in Brussels as are provided from the German Bundesrat. I have had some discussions to see whether that would be a reasonable procedure. It is something we could do quite apart from the provisions in the Bill. I do not think it is any official representation that the Germans have, but a high official who is there in effect monitors what is going on.
As I have said often enough, in practice there will be no difficulty about our finding out by whatever means we feel most appropriate what is happening within the Commission, what new draft proposals and regulations are coming up and whether we wish to debate them in Parliament by way of asking Questions, Adjournment debates, special debates or in any other way. We are much more flexible in these matters than the Germans.

Mr. Michael Foot: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept the assurance that we do not think he is being repetitive. He is spilling a bigger basinful of beans than he has ever split before.
Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman looked at these matters—he says we want to get these matters extremely clear—because the whole future of the House of Commons depends upon them? When he says that resort to our procedures in various ways was not included in the Bill because this might have fettered us, who does he mean would be fettered? Would the Government be fettered? Who would be fettered by having a much greater resort to affirmative Resolutions? Who would be fettered by having the provision for Acts of Parliament to enact these matters? Would the Government be fettered if we put these things in? The House of Commons would not be fettered. The House of Commons would be set free if these provisions were put in. Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman must realise how much he has said.

Mr. Rippon: Concerning what I have said, if the right hon. Gentleman will look back at the mass of discussion that


we have had in the past he must draw a distinction between what is properly in the Bill and what properly are matters for procedure under the ad hoc committee.
As I said in the "Clause 1 stand part", debate, the Bill stands on its merits. There are certain propositions put forward in detail. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise matters which may properly be in the Bill.
I was dealing with Amendment No. 79, to start with, and saying that if one were to strike out subsection (1)—as I think my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East has accepted—one would, in his words, emasculate the Bill.
I do not think the Committee will disagree with one thing. We are now at the Committee stage of the Bill. We should be concentrating our attention not on the principles but on what hon. Gentlemen say are matters which concern the method of giving effect in this country to the obligations which joining the Community imposes upon them. There may be argument about that with which we will have to deal, as we come to it, on its merits.
There is no merit in a proposal to omit subsection (1). Hon. Members have said that if they do not succeed in that, we shall come back to something which they regard as less satisfactory than emasculation, and we must deal with those points as we come to them.

Mr. Spearing: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has asked us to debate this on its merits. With regard to subsection (1) would he not agree—as his right hon. Friend agreed—that this House could enact legislation obligatory on treaties? In subsection (1) we are told that all these liabilities, obligations and so on must come without further enactment. On the merits of the Bill, would it not be impossible to put into the Clause that it is an obligation on this House to enact those in statutory form, which is our customary constitutional practice? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why that was not possible and why it was not negotiated?

Mr. Rippon: We have drafted Clause 2(1) for the reasons which I have explained on Second Reading and other

occasions. "Does it give effect to our obligations in the best possible way?" is a legitimate matter for discussion. I believe my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will have something to say about what is covered by "rights … liabilities, obligations …".
This is an Amendment designed to cut out Clause 2(1). It has no merits and would not be a way of enabling us to fulfil our Community obligations. Its proposers do not wish it to have that effect.

Mr. Powell: There is a misunderstanding here concerning the effect of leaving out subsection (1). If subsection (1) were left out it would be necessary to bring these Community enactments into legal effect in this country by other methods, such as by Statutory Instrument. The Committee is discussing what my right hon. and learned Friend said it was possible for us to discuss, the method of carrying out our treaty obligations.

Mr. Rippon: Some of those arguments arise on my right hon. Friends' Amendments which are considered with this.
One cannot escape the obligation so far as directly applicable law is concerned. One has to make the necessary legislative provision for that. That has been made clear from the outset of 1967 by successive Governments. This is an obligation which those who wish to join the Community have to accept. It may be an obligation that many members of this Committee have never wished to accept from the outset. But one has to accept that principle. Thereafter one may have to consider how to give effect to it. One will not give effect to it by saying "We will not accept that it is directly applicable". In the case of directives, one can implement them in accordance with one's own national requirements. In the case of regulations one cannot do that. We have gone over all that ground before.

Mr. William Molloy: Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North) rose——

Mr. Rippon: It would be better if I went on and dealt at some greater length with some of the points already dealt with. Then no doubt, if the hon. Gentleman is unhappy he will be able to revert to his particular points.
When we join, Community law will exist side by side with statute law and common law in this country. It will be applied in our courts as law in this country. This directly applicable principle is the important and essential feature of the Communities but it is not a common policy. It is a means whereby once a Community policy is agreed, the Community institutions—the Council in important matters; the Commission in more routine matters—can give effect to that policy, or individual aspects of it, by agreeing where appropriate on common regulations in the knowledge that those regulations will be applied uniformly throughout the member States.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North dealt at some length wih provisions in the treaty dealing with respective obligations of the Commission and the Council, the way they work together. That is also dealt with in the 1967 White Paper, though not in such great detail as he gave.

Mr. Molloy: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I must pursue the point put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman by hon. and right hon. Members from both sides of the House vis-à-vis the German situation. This afternoon we have probably come to one of the most vital issues since we first started discussing the Bill. Some of us are of the opinion that we have been told, with regard to the whole exercise, that we are joining one club and, therefore, have to accept the rules. We have pointed out this afternoon that some members of the club, the Germans, have given an interpretation of the rules as they see fit and which they will claim is to their advantage. The right hon. Gentleman says they are lucky; that we are not able to do that because of our constitution. He has been challenged on that. It is a very serious issue. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be prepared to examine this a little more in detail and tell us whether—it does not matter whether it is the German constitution—what they are doing is or is not in accord with the Rome Treaty, and whether we would have the same rights if we were mugs enough to join that organisation?

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman has helped me enormously. He has pointed

to a misunderstanding under which some of his other colleagues still labour.
There is no difference between the applicability of the Community law to each of the member States. It is not that we accept the directly applicable law and that they have some curious procedures whereby they do not. The purpose of having the directly applicable law is that the regulations will be applied uniformly throughout the member States. That is accepted. There is no doubt about that. If the hon. Gentleman is in doubt about that, I am glad to have resolved it.
The only difference of procedure is the way in which a particular Parliament might choose to debate or discuss policy before it becomes directly applicable law. That is what we have explained. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stepney quoted what I said on Second Reading concerning how in these procedures—which the Commission or the Council adopt for considering draft regulations or draft directives—matters are considered openly and publicly, and referred from time to time to the European Parliament or the Economic and Social Committee, so that there is every opportunity for every Parliament to consider, in its own way, the draft policy. The Bundesrat may send an observer to Brussels and he may report back.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

7.0 p.m.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Some of us are in great difficulty because the right hon. and learned Gentleman keeps referring to the "European Parliament". In all the law of the Communities, it is the European Assembly—the Assembly of the European Communities. The fact that it has sometimes tried to think of itself as a Parliament does not mean that it is so. Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman keep to the terminology of the documents before us?

The Chairman: That is not a point of order. Nomenclature is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Rippon: In terms of language which people can understand, the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) can blame the dry legal jargon of his own Government's White Paper.


Most hon. Members understand what is meant by "European Parliament". It is an assembly of Members of Parliament, and there is a lot of other argument about the powers it should have. The point I am making—it has often been made—is that it is important that our Parliament, when these matters are going through the Commission or the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament, should have the opportunity in good time to express a view before a directive or regulation is made because when a regulation or directive came into effect and was directly applicable it would complain if it had never had a hint of it beforehand and it was a matter of substance.
This is why we have suggested that not only now but in the future there will be many years in which to consider this. We shall consider how best to discuss in Parliament matters which are arising in the Commission or in the Communities or in any of the various institutions of interest to us. That we can do according to our own procedures. That is what the French, the Germans, the Luxembourgers and the Dutch do.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The gravamen of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is that the Germans and Dutch have introduced their proposals in accordance with their parliamentary procedures. Is he asserting that what is proposed to be enacted here is the best possible way to introduce these matters in accordance with our parliamentary procedures? Will he confirm, if that is right, that he will not in any circumstances introduce any guillotine of our discussions of these vital matters?

Mr. Rippon: This is the best way of giving effect to our treaty obligations. Thereafter, of course, there will be discussions about future Community policies. It will be a very open and public process and it is based essentially on the principle of consent. It is very important to remember for the future that we are joining a living community and not this incredible juggernaut which people present, and that we shall be free, in accordance with our parliamentary procedures, to consider these matters, whether we set up an ad hoc committee or whether the Select Committee on Procedure considers it. We shall not only have debates on orders; we shall have

our own opportunities, as these matters go through the Community, to have Parliamentary Questions, Adjournment debates and, if necessary, votes of censure. There is no question of a future Government giving effect to some major matter of policy like conscription without anyone knowing about it.
One has to remember that many of the regulations and directives of the Community are in the nature of things only of temporary duration. On Second Reading we devoted a lot of time to explaining the nature of the regulations which have now been considered by the Communities, those which are temporary and those which are permanent. What I am emphasising is that we are not absorbing, under subsection (1), the whole corpus of directly applicable instruments issued by the Communities since they were founded. We shall be absorbing those which are expected to be still in force when we join on 1st January, 1973. I indicated the nature of these on Second Reading.
In the future, many of these regulations will come and go. Some are of major importance and will be identified as such early on; others are of an essentially administrative nature. It is also right that we should reiterate on this occasion what has been said many times before, including, inevitably, by the Leader of the Opposition—that by far the greater part of our domestic law will remain unchanged after entry.
Lord Gardiner, in the House of Lords, had this to say:
Community law has little direct effect on the ordinary life of private citizens. In so far as it imposes obligations, it does so mostly in relation to industrial and commercial activities and does not touch citizens in their private capacities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 282, c. 1203.]
Our basic legal system and legal methods will remain unchanged. Membership of the Communities will have no implications for the general principles of our criminal law and procedure, trial by jury, the presumption of innocence and habeas corpus. All these matters will continue as before. Property, divorce, contract, tort, civil procedure, and so on, will all be unaffected.
Some people may be frightened by the references which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East made again today to the


existing secondary legislation of the Communities—the 41 volumes and the 42nd volume of index. As he himself said, 28 contain regulations relating to the common agricultural policy which will be carried out in the United Kingdom by the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce to be set up under Clause 6. A number of the directly applicable regulations contained in the remaining 13 parts of the English text of the Community secondary legislation would not, in fact, have any direct effect in the United Kingdom because they relate mainly to the conditions of service in the various Community institutions, the setting up of various committees and the establishment of research and experimental projects. The remaining 100 or so regulations affect mainly customs matters, restrictive trade practices and transport. It is matters of this sort which Governments have normally dealt with without great difficulty in the past under other treaties.
As for the future, I think it is important—although the right hon. Member for Stepney made a little fun about it—to remember that we shall, of course, as members be playing our full part in the creation of common policy and in the formulation of any implementation of policy.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Before my right hon. and learned Friend leaves the existing regulations, will he give the information for which I asked? What steps are proposed to keep us informed of the regulations made since 10th November, 1971? This is nearly six months more of regulations than are in the 41 volumes, and the House should know and be continuously kept informed.

Mr. Rippon: We must certainly keep the Committee informed of what is going on. I forget what particular undertakings have been given on this matter, but I am sure that we have made some statement about this. They are available in the OFFICIAL JOURNAL and we have what we call the official translations. They must be turned into authentic translations by the time we become full members of the Community so that there can be no doubt about the position.

Mr. Jay: Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman can give a firm pledge

that within a reasonable period the Committee will be given the text of the regulations made since November, which we have not yet seen?

Mr. Marten: By next week.

Mr. Rippon: I do not know about next week, but we will certainly see that they come out as fast as they can be produced. They are first in official translation, and then they must be made authentic texts by 1st January, 1973.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Sir Robert. The Minister has been quoting a number of rules and regulations which have been in existence for six months and which none of us can obtain. I have written to him asking for them. Should these not be made available, because we need them for the debate? It is not good enough for him to say that he will decide whether they are necessary for the debate. I say with respect that it is the duty of the Chair to ensure that if we need papers we are able to get them from the Vote Office or the Library.

The Chairman: Order. I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, because it has been laid down that it is not the duty of the Chair to see to that.

Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. This is a very difficult situation. The Government are failing in their duty, and it ought to be within the province of the Committee to obtain as speedily as possible the texts and translations of these documents. May I give you an example of great importance? Hon. Members have merely seen sentences in the Press about a speech made yesterday by the President of the European Commission. It would appear—presumably he is speaking for the Commission—that when he says that members of the Community should have civil rights anywhere what he means is that they should have electoral rights. By passing this Clause we might be changing the electoral law of this country. Yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said nothing about this. He has not given us the documents or told us anything about the proposals.

The Chairman: Order. These really are not points of order. They may be matters of argument as between the Government and hon. Members, but they are not for me.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: May I give you an example of a time when you have assisted the Committee in days gone by, Sir Robert? We have raised with you the fact that certain orders and papers which we wanted for debate were not available, and you not only gave instructions for them to be made available but you went out of your way to see that they were distributed. I am referring to Ways and Means Resolutions on the Finance Bill and Budget Resolutions. Now we can go to the Library or to the Vote Office, we can write to the Minister, but we are told as I have been, that they are available if I would care to go and get them in Brussels or in France. That is not good enough. Mr. Speaker makes arrangements for the printing and distribution to hon. Members of papers relevant to the debate. Only last evening I found that papers were not available on a matter being debated, and I raised this with the Table. I was told that the paper would be available in the Vote Office, and it was. In the past the Chair has assisted. The trouble is that the Government have not got the papers, they do not know what they are and they will not make them available. If they were available the Government would give them to us.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman has said that we have had some correspondence on this matter, but I think he has given rather a distorted view of what we have told him. We have given him all the help he required, as we give to anyone interested in a certain matter. What he must understand is that as soon as we are full members of the Community these matters will become very much simpler. As the Committee will appreciate, we are in a difficulty at the moment in that we are not full members of the Community.

Mr. Clinton Davis: On a point of order, Sir Robert. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not in a position to reply to a point of order. Surely this is a matter for you.

The Chairman: I was waiting for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to finish so that I could emphasise what I have already said, which is that, whatever may have happened in the past, and I think I remember what the hon. Gen-

tleman is talking about, this is not the same thing. At that time I was trying to facilitate matters involving something which the Government were prepared to do and were giving some undertakings about doing. I cannot compel the Government to do these things. They must do what they think right. I am concerned only with points of order as they affect the procedure and order of the debate. I cannot make Governments do what they do not want to do.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. May I go further into this and give an example? One of the orders which I want to quote is one which will mean doubling or trebling motor insurance premiums for all people in this country. The Minister will not supply it, so how can you say whether I am in order if I am quoting from a non-existent document, provided that I get my own translation?

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not worry himself about that. He can talk about anything he likes on this Amendment so long as it is in order. Whether it is a correct translation is no concern of mine.

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. It is for the Chair to decide whether Amendments are in order and for the Chair in certain circumstances to decide whether Bills are in order. When we go to the Chair with private Bills it is the Chair who decides what is in order. Remembering always that ignorance of the law is no excuse, we are being asked to provide for certain liabilities, obligations and restrictions to have the force of law, maybe creating criminal offences. We do not know what those liabilities, obligations or restrictions are. The citizen can have no opportunity of finding out. A Bill that does that is out of order, and if an hon. Member were to put such a thing in a Private Member's Bill the Chair would rule that it was out of order. I submit that it is available to the Chair to rule that this is out of order.

The Chairman: The House has voted on the Bill, and, therefore, the Bill is in order. The Amendment is in order, and nothing has been done which is out of order. If the Committee wishes to raise these points—and it is perfectly entitled


to raise them—I ask the Committee to raise them with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and not with me. There is nothing I can do.

Mr. Michael Foot: May I put a question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman at your invitation, Sir Robert? The availability of documents is an extremely important question which should not be treated lightly by the Committee. This episode was initiated by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) asking what was the position about the new regulations which come out in the interval between November, 1971, and January, 1973, when, if the Bill goes through, we join the Community. I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that some of those regulations would be available to us only in January, 1973.
That is an appalling situation. If there are regulations which will be presented to the House of Commons only after the passage of the Bill, we want to know what they are. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot tell us now, I hope he will tell us later in the debate what is the nature of those regulations, when we shall get them and what steps the Government are taking to ensure that we do get them.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has already had to make two or three withdrawals this afternoon, and I hope he will withdraw the statement he made a few moments ago that some of these regulations would be available only just prior to or at the time we actually go into the Community, when no remedy whatsoever would be left to the House of Commons. Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman is claiming, we believe falsely, that he is abiding by the procedures of the House of Commons, if he can tell me of any other regulation to which such a proposition has been applied in the ordinary procedures of the House of Commons I shall be interested to hear it.

Mr. Rippon: If the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale reads what I had to say, he will see that I made no withdrawals, only helpful explanations. Clearly, there is misunderstanding, even in his mind, on this matter. We discussed on Amendments to Clause 1 authentic texts, official

texts and the difficulty we are in because we are not full members. By the time we are full members we must have authentic texts for everything. Up to now I have been talking about the regulations in the volumes to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East referred. There is no doubt that there will be subsequent volumes, and we shall be bringing out further volumes as the Community is evolving.
I have explained to the House of Commons and to the Committee the nature of the interim procedures which were agreed in the course of the negotiations, and why there is this difficulty of the time lapse between our signing of the treaty and our carrying through this legislation and the process of ratification. By the time we become full members on 1st January, 1973, we have to have authentic texts for the courts. Meanwhile, we have had to be satisfied in certain spheres with official texts. We shall produce further volumes——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: When it is too late.

Mr. Rippon: —as soon as it can physically be done. Reasonable people on both sides of the Committee understand that this is in practice the only way in which we can conceivably proceed. The hon. Member for West Ham, North has some curious ideas about insurance policies. This matter is being discussed, but there is no regulation or directive. There is a limit to what we, not being a full member of the Community, can require in terms of authentic texts. We provide as fast as we can as much unofficial information as we can as soon as it is available, and official texts will be provided where it is appropriate as soon as possible.
There has never been any misunderstanding about this, although there has been a lot of song and dance this afternoon. There are some genuine anxieties which we shall do our best to meet, although it is wrong to suggest that these matters have not been discussed before or that any hon. Member on either side of the Committee has been taken wholly by surprise by these procedures.

Mr. Marten: When you ruled, Sir Robert, about the submission of the hon.


and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), I understood you to say that, because the Clause had been given a Second Reading, the hon. and learned Gentleman could not submit that it was out of order. But that Second Reading was on the basis that these documents would be available. This has now changed, and, because it has changed, I respectfully submit that the Clause should be ruled out of order.

The Chairman: No, the Clause has had a Second Reading. If undertakings are given during the course of the Second Reading debate, that is not a matter for the Chair. The Chair is concerned only to see that the Clause is read properly a Second time. I can take the matter no further than that.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Sir Robert. I remember an occasion when a Clause in a Private Member's Bill had been read a Second time but was found in Committee to involve a charge on the revenue and was, therefore, ruled out of order.

The Chairman: The Clause would have to be validated by a Money Resolution, which is a different matter.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Sir Robert. This spate of points of order arose because the right hon. and learned Gentleman was kind enough to give way to me. I wonder whether I may now be allowed to deliver my intervention? We are concerned not only about the House of Commons but about whether the Government are informed of all the documents and regulations. On many occasions we have mentioned to the right hon. and learned Gentleman something which he apparently knows nothing about. We know that if the Bill is passed, after 1st January there will be regular English texts pouring out of Brussels and overwhelming us, but is it not advisable for the sake of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's credibility and the Government's credibility that they should provide themselves with English texts as soon as possible of everything which comes out? If they have done that, it is a simple matter to print extras and give them to us. If they have not done that, are they not in the difficulty that they may not be dealing with all the changes that are taking place in Brussels, such as the one I mentioned earlier?

Mr. Rippon: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, under the interim procedures we are involved in the discussions which are going on all the time about a vast range of matters. There is no problem there. The problem which faces the Committee is that we cannot produce translations of documents which may not have been agreed even at the official level. On all occasions I have assured the Committee that we will produce as fast as physically possible official translations of relevant documents which are not yet part of the working process but represent a draft regulation, a directive or a decision which has been taken.

[Mr. John Brew is in the Chair]

7.30 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: The Chancellor of the Duchy said that he could not recollect what undertakings had been given to the House about the availability of documents. If my recollection is right, that is a rather strange view from the right hon. and learned Gentleman about what has been said by him and by his colleagues from time to time. Would he clarify his position in this respect? Since he has already assured us that by January, 1973, the full authentic texts will be available, will he now undertake to fulfil that undertaking by 31st December, 1972? This is a matter of the utmost importance since we are setting out a whole host of legal obligations which will be imposed on the citizens of this country. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the Committee that before the Bill is given a Third Reading, if it ever gets to that stage, full authentic texts will be available to the House?

Mr. Rippon: I have explained on previous occasions that official texts will be produced as they come out. I was saying that I could not recollect the precise terms of the undertakings, but they are well known to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who understand the practical problems and they do not involve any point of principle or substance.

Mr. Spearing: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify a further point since we are not clear about the situation? A number of regulations have been agreed to in Brussels following the appearance of the 41 volumes. Are those


regulations available and, if so, may we be told where? Secondly, will the regulations or directives published after we have finished with Clause 2 be likely to be brought out before Third Reading? Finally, may we be told where we can obtain the directives and regulations which will appear after Third Reading and before 31st December this year?

Mr. Rippon: That illustrates the practical difficulty. Even after we have given the Bill a Third Reading, there will be within the Communities a continual process of discussion of future policies and of draft regulations and directives. This is a continuous process. We can make the relevant documents available only as they become available to us and only as they come to be translated.
We are at the moment in a difficult interim period in which we have signed the treaty but we do not become full members until 1st January, 1973. But in every real sense the Community is taking us fully into its discussions about future policy and we can report to the House from time to time as matters develop. What we cannot ask the Community to do is to stop and do nothing until we have joined the Community. As its work goes on we shall produce, as we have undertaken—I forget the exact form of undertakings, but there is no doubt about their purpose—translations of documents as they come before us. This will be a continuing process and no doubt before long the House will receive some more documents in translation.
I move on from that point because clearly it does not go to the heart of Amendment No. 79 and the deletion of subsection (1) or to the matters which genuinely concern the Committee about the role of Parliament in relation to directly applicable Community law. We are discussing the principle of directly applicable Community law, how it is imported into this country and how it impinges on our parliamentary sovereignty.
The right hon. Member for Stepney devoted some powerful arguments to his conception of the way in which parliamentary sovereignty would be under mined. Again, we had a long discussion last week on the Question "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill" when the right

hon. Member for Cheetham expressed his views, as did the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), and I expressed my views on behalf of the Government. There are genuine differences of opinion as to whether in pooling sovereignty one gains more than one loses.
Those of us who support the Bill and who believe in joining the Common Market believe that in the modern world one gains more by pooling sovereignty than the reverse. As Lord Gardiner said on 8th May, 1967:
This United Kingdom legislation would be an exercise of Parliamentary sovereignty and Community law, existing and future, would derive its force as law in this country from it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 282, c. 1202.]
Reference was there being made to the concept behind Clause 2(1) of the Bill. Although Parliament will not be able to enact individual Community regulations, it does not mean that it will not have a say in their formulation or that it cannot adopt procedures which will ensure that it has its say in the most effective way.
We discussed all these matters on Second Reading and on the Question "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill". Indeed my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East described in his dramatic way the long hours, days and even nights of debate.
There are two essential points the Committee must keep in mind and which the country should understand. The first is that the procedures of the Community are so open and so consultative that, aside from participation in the European Assembly—and I describe it in that way rather than calling it the European Parliament—Members of Parliament can be sure of knowing what is proposed. The second point is that United Kingdom Ministers will be involved in the making of all the major policy instruments and will be answerable to Parliament in the normal way for all the action taken on those instruments.
Against that background I suggest to the Committee that we might now concentrate on the drafting of Clause 2(1) and the Amendments proposed to it. We have discussed the principle over and over again, but the drafting of Clause 2(1) and the Amendments are matters which we must consider on their merits.
The first group of Amendments has as its common thread——

Mr. Shore: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that matter, may I put this point to him? A number of hon. Members who have contributed to this discussion, including myself, have tried to put to him a considerable argument about whether it is necessary to have self-enacting legislation, quite apart from the requirement to conform sufficiently to the treaty to be able to establish a common agricultural policy and a customs union. The particular argument I put was whether this self-enacting method of Community legislation was any longer appropriate after the Luxembourg accord. Surely the Chancellor wishes to say something about that.

Mr. Rippon: I have been dealing, so far as members of the Committee have allowed me to deal, with the principle involved. I have now suggested that we should look at the drafting of Clause 2(1) and the Amendments which are proposed to it. I will deal with the situation in general, and perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General can deal with some of the other points which have been raised.
The first group of Amendments relates to the principle of the subsection and deals with it in various ways. They probe the adequacy of Clause 2(1) as reflecting the principle of direct applicability. I do not think that group of Amendments should have detained us for very long. Here I would claim the support of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East because during the Second Reading debate he said:
Clause 2 is drafted, and impeccably drafted, to give precise effect to Article 189 of the treaty. The key words of the article are that the regulations are to be directly applicable. If Britain were to seek to join the Community and failed to ensure that the regulations are directly applicable in this country, we should be in breach of our treaty obligations. The obligation goes with membership. If we accept the desirability of membership, we accept the necessity of the treaty obligations, and the simplest way of meeting these obligations is to enact as has been done in Clause 2. The Clause has the virtue of honesty. The obligation is clear, and effect is clearly given to it.
My right hon. and learned Friend went on to explain that he was against Clause 2, not because of its drafting but for the

same reason that he was against Article 189. Unlike some, he has been against it ever since 1967. He went on to conclude:
We cannot logically accept entry and reject its requirements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 314.]
All I am saying is that my right hon. and learned Friend was right when he said that Clause 2 is impeccably drafted to give effect to our obligations. It may be a matter of judgment, but I do not think that our obligations, so fundamental to our membership, could be better expressed than they are in Clause 2(1).
I come, then, to Amendment No. 79. That would omit the whole subsection. I need spend no further time in explaining why it must be rejected.
There are a great many other Amendments in this group which attack and no doubt are meant to attack the very principle of the subsection and the system of directly applicable law. Amendment No. 216 requires every instrument made after entry to be approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament. But that, too, attacks the principle that Community instruments should apply in this country in their own right. I have explained why direct applicability means and has always meant that the directly applicable provisions have to take effect in their own right without the legislative intervention of Parliament.
Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 raise virtually the same point by requiring instruments made by the Commission to be approved in draft by each House of Parliament. The great bulk of Commission instruments are in the nature of administrative orders. They deal with the detailed implementation of the common agricultural policy in accordance with the principles laid down by the Council of Ministers. It is quite wrong, as the right hon. Member for Battersea, North has tended to suggest, that the Commission is a law-making power entirely at large and without any sort of control. Its powers to make decisions are within the ambit of the treaty. Certainly it is more than a civil service. It has certain powers to initiate and, within the framework of policy laid down by the Ministers, it can make decisions which I suggest that practice has shown to be in the nature of administrative orders.

Mr. Jay: The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not deny that, within that framework and in many cases without reference to the Council of Ministers, the Commission legislates.

Mr. Rippon: Oh, no, and this is set out in paragraph 15 of the 1967 White Paper. The right hon. Gentleman developed it properly and fairly in more detail.
Amendments Nos. 260 and 261 also seek to introduce specific parliamentary control over Community instruments. Under them, as I understand it, such instruments would not take effect for 28 days and would never take effect if during that time either House so resolved. Here again I submit that such a proposal is inconsistent with the concept of direct applicability.

7.45 p.m.

Sir Robin Turton: My right hon. and learned Friend has described Amendment No. 78 as being inconsistent with the treaty. This is the one where regulations are made by the Commission. Surely that is exactly what the Bundestag has. In Article 2 of German law the Bundestag examines proposals in draft. Presumably if there were an adverse decision, the regulation would have to be made by the Council of Ministers and not by the Commission. It cannot be consistent with our Treaty of Accession.

Mr. Rippon: I think that Article 2 applies to draft instruments of the Council and not of the Commission. But I will look further into that point.
Amendment No. 141 again attacks the principle by restricting the areas in which directly applicable provisions take effect here. It would confine Clause 2(1) to the common customs tariff, the common agricultural policy, sugar and the European Coal and Steel Community provisions. Obviously that could not be accepted because areas in which there is already important Community policy and law, such as competition and the common transport policy, would be excluded. Even more important, so would the common regional, industrial and social policies of the future. That would conflict with the basic treaty commitment that I have explained.
The other Amendments are in the nature of probing Amendments. It may

be that more will be said about them by those hon. Members who have tabled them as the debate continues, and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will be able to deal with them.
There are a number of other Amendments dealing with drafting points. I do not think I should deal with them at this stage in case further matters are raised.

Sir Robin Turton: I made an appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend to consider whether we should not deal with the changes by the consolidation Bill procedure under Standing Order 87A, which would require some form of Amendment rather on the lines of Amendment No. 7, which we are discussing. What view does my right hon. and learned Friend take about how any consolidated law would be put to the House?

Mr. Rippon: My right hon. Friend asked me to consider that matter before Report. Certainly I undertake to consider his point in that regard. As I understand it, we have agreed not to consider Amendment No. 7 which raises some of these matters. That is why I did not deal with it.

Mr. Dell: On a point of order, Mr. Brewis. Is that correct? I had been informed by the Chair that the Chair had decided to keep Amendment No. 7 within this grouping.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Brewis): I understand that Amendment No. 7 is within the group now being considered.

Mr. Rippon: I apologise to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell). I recollect that he said he was quite happy, however it was dealt with.

Mr. Dell: I said that I was happy. But, like other hon. Members, I am bound by the Chair. When I approached the Chair after representations had been made, I was told that that decision had been made. Naturally, I accepted it.

Mr. Rippon: My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General reminds me that in fact we were not told that. At any rate, until the right hon. Gentleman has spoken to his Amendment, probably it is right that I should not deal with the substance of it. But certainly there are important issues raised by it about the responsibilities of the Law Commission.


My understanding is that the Law Commission's responsibilities would still be carried on. But the substance of what is raised in Amendment No. 7 is a matter that my hon. and learned Friend proposes to deal with later.
We should now proceed to deal not with principles but with the detailed substance——

Mr. Powell: Reverting to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton), I understood my right hon. and learned Friend to undertake that the matter would be considered before Report. If I understood that correctly, it is implicit that my right hon. and learned Friend is assuming that there will be a Report stage.

Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. To clear up any misunderstanding, I take it that my right hon. Friend was hoping that I might give more consideration to it than a matter of 15 or 20 minutes subsequent to my right hon. Friend's speech.

Mr. Paget: I find the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's method of debate a little peculiar. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to develop to an extreme state that defence reflex which most politicians develop not to listen to their hon. Friends' speeches. He almost seems to be unconscious of what has been said previously in debate. He also seems to produce a lot of arguments which would lead me to the opposite conclusions from those which he asks us to draw from them. His grand slam argument always seems to produce with fine documentary support the fact that somebody has changed his mind and thought differently on a previous occasion. If I change my mind, it is basically because I feel that the second opinion, on further consideration, is better than the first. I am also prepared to give equal credit to other people who change their minds.
The fact that a good many of us who have examined the Common Market and learned more about it and come to the conclusion that it is wrong when we first thought it was right, seems to be an argument against the Market, but the conclusion which the right hon. and

learned Gentleman will always ask us to draw is the opposite.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted Lord Gardiner as saying that European law will draw its authority from the sovereign authority of our Parliament, which will confer that authority on Europe. I do not know that I have it exactly, but I think that is the text.
When a monarch abdicates, the new monarch draws his authority from that abdication, but that does not mean that the first monarch has not lost his power.
I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) for his research, examination, and the wealth of case law evidence which he brought to show us the extent of the usurpation or the assumption of authority by Brussels and Luxembourg over the domestic courts of the subordinate members of that authority. It is rather tragic that there was such a small audience to hear that.
If people realised—they do not—the extent of what we are doing, their opinions would on the whole be very different indeed. However, people do not come and hear a speech like that, and nobody reports it. Under the system of modern newspaper reporting it will be driven off the parliamentary reports by a ridiculous incident in which somebody makes an ass of himself at Question Time. That is all we shall hear about it in our parliamentary report tomorrow. In fact, we have had a major speech of the greatest importance telling us in great detail what was happening and what we were doing both to a constitution and to a system of common law which we have evolved in a thousand years of history. We have evolved this constitution. It is not something though up by Montesquieu in the nineteenth century with ideas about a sovereignty which can turn a man into a woman.
Our constitution grew upon the powers which we conferred and exercised over our taxation, economy and legislation. These are the things which Parliament can debate, look into, watch, exercise and influence. This authority and constitution has grown. Now, after 700 years in which the legislation which we have implemented, created and brought into being has been read a First time, has been read a Second time, has been


examined in Committee in detail and read the Third time, is to be supplemented and subordinated to 42 volumes which we have never read.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Which the Government have never seen.

Mr. Paget: Which we have not seen.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Which the Government have not seen.

Mr. Paget: Which nobody has ever read.
This is to be a superior law put over our law. On the occasion of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Trotsky reported back to Lenin "Have signed without reading." I always understood Trotsky's statement to show the contempt which he felt for the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk by his total lack of inclination to pay any attention to what he had signed. I should be slightly comforted if I thought that was the Government's view, but it is not.
Yet, not only in this period of evolution did we create this constitution of ours, but we created the common law of England. The common law of England is not merely our common law; it is the common law of America, of India, of nearly a third of the inhabitants of this earth. This common law which we developed, which we created and evolved, which has its own systems and principles, is suddenly to have not grafted on to it but placed above it as a higher authority a set of enactments based not upon our legal thinking but upon the Roman and Napoleonic codes, which is a different system of law which has been evolved in Europe. By this single Clause we are proceeding to do that kind of violence to this long evolved law, and we are doing it here and now.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Without the full-hearted consent of the people.

Mr. Paget: We are doing it, above all, in ignorance. That degree of ignorance varies from total ignorance of what we are doing, which applies to most of the country, to the modified ignorance of the Government themselves.
8.0 p.m.
The more we hear from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the less we are convinced of his understanding of

what he is doing. It is alarming when we hear him.
The Clause is not expressed to provide precision; it is to avoid precision, because the Government do not know what is happening. It provides:
All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions".
We have this catalogue, because no more precise catalogue is available. The words are vague. They are intended not to convey meaning but to conceal meaning. They are not intended to define, because definition is not available until the Government have finally discovered what the laws which they are imposing are and add up to.
The Clause states,
as in accordance … to be given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom shall be recognised and available in law, and be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly
That is astonishingly wide, but it is not wide enough. It goes on,
and the expression 'enforceable Community right' and similar expressions".
In an attitude which is bringing to an end a sovereignty, an authority, a means of government, a living which has been evolved throughout these years, we are asked to submit to Community right and similar expressions.
In line 25 we have,
from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties".
What does that mean? What is the difference between "created" and "arising by or under"? Is there something which comes from above and something which comes from underneath?
It is an appalling piece of verbiage which is strange and ill-expressed because the Government do not know precisely what they want to say and feel that they would like to find words which cover anything that they might subsequently wish to say. This is not the way to legislate.
I listen to these debates as they progress with the most profound depression. I have a feeling that it is so very like what happened in the signory in Venice when those final meetings took place, dully, inattentive, without response, as they decided to terminate the history of Venice.

Mr. Powell: I generally take pleasure in following, in both senses, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), but this evening I will not do so in the secondary sense of the word because he, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and others who have spoken, took the Amendment and Clause 2(1) as typical or symbolic of the transfer of sovereignty, the ending of parliamentary omni competence and the cession of the right to tax, which is implicit in British membership of the Community. They were entitled so to do. However, the Amendment is much more comprehensive, in the sense that it is an Amendment to which any right hon. or hon. Gentleman might adhere whether or not it was his view that Britain in principle, or even under the present negotiated terms, should join the European Economic Community.
As I shall show, it would not merely be possible but right for any right hon. or hon. Member who believed that parliamentary control or even parliamentary information could be improved to do so in terms both of the Amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East and of a number of other Amendments consistently with a wish to adhere to the Community.
I hope, therefore, that this will not be a debate, as we have had so many, for or against British membership of the Community or about the real and solid issue of sovereignty which that decision involves, but that it will be, as I am sure many of those who put down these Amendments intended, a debate in which all can take part who are concerned to improve parliamentary control. In my view, all these Amendments, except those which are merely probing and drafting Amendments, are amendments to which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) or the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) himself could, without the slightest difficulty, give their support. I have no doubt that later in the evening or tomorrow we shall find that that is the case.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman is an optimist.

Mr. Powell: I like to be optimistic about the readiness of right hon. and

hon. Members in any quarter of the Committee to be persuaded of opportunities for improving control by the House of Commons within the framework of whatever legislation or policy may be proposed.
I am not sure that sufficient attention has yet been paid to the wording of the subsection. The key words are,
in accordance with the Treaties are without further enactment to be given legal effect".
Those words are the heart of the subsection. All the "rights", and so on, which are enumerated, are subordinate to that qualification. They are, in the terms of the subsection,
such rights … as in accordance with the Treaties are without further enactment to be given legal effect".
We therefore first inquire: what is the scope of the rights et cetera which the treaties require to be given legal effect "without further enactment"?
From the heart of the subsection I have extracted the very medulla, in those words, "without further enactment". In order to know what they mean, we are referred to Article 189 of the treaty. I have taken it from the debate so far, and from the reply of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, that it is only under Article 189 that, in the view of the Government, any such rights can arise. We are, therefore, justified in addressing ourselves to Article 189, which sets out three kinds of binding Community law: regulations, directives and decisions.
If I have understood correctly, it is the regulations, as that word is defined in Article 189, which, in the view of the Government—I am not sure; we shall see presently—are, in accordance with that Article, to be given legal effect in this country "without further enactment".
If so—I deal first wtih a minor point, before coming to the central one—that does not apply to decisions, because the terminology for decisions is different. Decisions are not, in the terms of Article 189, "directly applicable"; those words do not occur in Article 189 in the definition of a decision. So we must assume that under the Bill decisions will not take effect in the law of this country automatically under Clause 2(1), that Clause 2(1) does not deal with decisions, and that decisions have to be given effect


in the law of this country by other means and by other procedures.
It is perhaps interesting to remind ourselves what these decisions are. For this purpose I refer, as I am sure is permissible, to the legal and constitutional White Paper of May 1967, paragraph 10:
A decision may also have direct internal effect. It is stated to 'be binding in its entirety upon those to whom it is directed'. Decisions are appropriate for imposing obligations or liabilities upon, or granting rights or exemptions to, particular undertakings or individuals.
So we know that the Commission or the Council would have the power under the treaty to do all those things to undertakings and individuals in this country, and that those decisions would be binding in accordance with the terms of the treaty. But they are not designated as "directly applicable". It must follow that these are to be enacted separately in each case, presumably by the other procedures under this Clause, notably perhaps subsection (2).
Some very important considerations arise from this. For example, it is no use for anyone on the Front Bench to say that we cannot have a parliamentary procedure because if the parliamentary procedure ended with a negative decision we would be in breach of the treaty; for by this Clause they are providing in respect of decisions which are equally binding in their entirety with the regulations, a procedure by statutory instrument—in other words, by enactment. So it is perhaps not an entirely otoise by-product of this debate to realise that by statutory instruments Community decisions binding upon undertakings and individuals in this country will be given effect in the law of the land. I must say I think some of them will be rather remarkable statutory instruments. Nevertheless, it is gratifying that at any rate they are to be presented to the House, that they are to be published—I take it—in the proper way, and that at least we shall have an opportunity to see and to debate them.
From that I come to the central point, which is the regulations. The terminology in the treaty as to the regulations says that they are to be "binding in their entirety and are to be directly applicable—the alternative translation was "take direct effect"—in each member state. By a sleight of hand the drafts-

men or the Government have substituted the concept "without further enactment" for the concept "directly applicable". However, it does not follow that the one means the other. Indeed, in the context it is perfectly clear what is meant by "directly applicable" under the terms of Article 189. We realise this from the contrast between a regulation and a directive. The regulation and the directive are equally binding, but the directive is to be given effect as to form and method in a way which the member countries can decide, whereas the regulation is textually and in every detail to be the same and uniform in all the member states and throughout the Community. This was a point which my right hon. and learned Friend emphasised. So what the words "directly applicable" mean is not "without further enactment". What happens inside the member countries is not the business of the treaty—that has been brought out already in this debate. The treaty is concerned with securing that, once the regulation is made, that regulation and no other is to be part of the law of all the member countries; but it does not prescribe in what way or by what procedures it is to be become part, or to be validated as part, of the law of the member countries.
8.15 p.m.
I need hardly labour this point with you, Mr. Brewis, as the occupant of the Chair, because we have the view of the Chair upon this matter and it is that which I am putting to the Committee. The Chair has quite clearly ruled, and our debates are governed by this ruling, that nothing can be in order which would be inconsistent with the treaty, that we cannot refuse by means of Amendment—other than on "Clause stand part"—to do that which is necessary for the implementation of the treaty. As it has been loosely expressed, we cannot alter the treaty.
Of course, if the terms in Article 189 really meant the same as the words "without further enactment" in Clause 2(1), you, Mr. Brewis, would have instantly ruled out of order not only the Amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend but all the Amendments in this group, because it would have been, in your view, a requirement of the treaty—a requirement which we were attempting by this Amendment to


alter, to break—that regulations became law "without further enactment".
So we are fortified by the ruling which governs these debates, in the conclusion that there is no requirement in the treaty for regulations to become law without further enactment. It is a matter open for us to decide in this Committee. However, I can pray in aid my right hon. and learned Friend himself, who said this afternoon "This Amendment does not require an amendment of the Treaty." I heard him say it in the initial exchanges as he rose to address the Committee.
If the omission of Clause 2(1) does not require an amendment of the treaty, then it follows that the treaty does not require implementation "without further enactment". If the omission of Clause 2(1) does not require an amendment of the treaty, then the treaty does not require Clause 2(1).
Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster went further and said in praise of Clause 2(1) that in his opinion "it is the best way of giving effect to our treaty obligations". Well, it certainly is "a" way of giving effect to them, and my right hon. and learned Friend, since he finds it in the Bill, is entitled to his opinion that it is the best way; but it would be impossible to say of something to which there was no alternative, of something which the treaty prescribed as it stands in the Bill, that "it is the best way for us to give effect to our treaty obligations".
So we come to an extremely important conclusion: that we have been misled, in so far as we supposed that Clause 2(1) was necessary to implement the treaty. It is not. The treaty would be equally implemented if, as I suggest, the Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East were carried, because then subsection (2) and other parts of the Bill would be used to carry out what under Article 189 undoubtedly are our duties under the treaty.
But there is a further conclusion, a further consequence. It is that the Government have made an almighty boob in Clause 2(1), and that Clause 2(1) is itself a complete nonsense. It is a subsection which, on the Government's own view, has no content at all. It refers only to such rights as are to be given

legal effect "without further enactment" "in accordance with the Treaties". They are not rights which are to be given legal effect "without further enactment" if the Government prefer it. Those would not fall under subsection (1). It is only those rights which the Treaties require to be given effect "without further enactment"—not which the Treaties permit, but which the Treaties require—which "are to be" given that effect "in accordance with the Treaties"—which fall under this subsection. As we have seen, there are no such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies or procedures whatsoever.
So this is a subsection about nothing because, as is admitted by my right hon. and learned Friend, as well as by the ruling of the Chair, the Treaties do not require any such rights to be given legal effect in this country in this way. My hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-General, in his anxiety to simplify perhaps not only our proceedings under the Bill but future proceedings, if it should by any mischance happen that this country joins the EEC, has chanced his arm too far in the subsection. He hoped that we would not notice it, even though, incidentally, it has been openly admitted by the Prime Minister himself, who argued in his winding up speech on Second Reading against parliamentary enactment of directly applicable Community law, as though it were an alternative which was open and not, as the subsection implies, a procedure expressly forbidden by the Treaties.
My hon. and learned Friend has blundered into drafting what appears to be an operative subsection of the Bill but in fact has no effect at all. Whether or not we take out this nonsensical subsection, even as the Bill stands, all Community law will have to be given effect under other parts of the Bill, because, I repeat for the last time, there are no rights, there are admittedly no rights, which, "in accordance with the Treaties", are to be given legal effect "without further enactment". This is one huge, almighty boob. It is a meaningless subsection purporting to introduce a great mass of Community law into the law of this country, but in fact accomplishing nothing.
I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will be only


too glad to hide away the wreckage of this misconceived subsection as soon as possible by recommending the Committee to accept the Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East [Interruption.] I live in hopes—for I am very conscious of the legal rectitude and logical mind of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General—that he will recognise that there is no content to subsection (1) and will secure its removal from the Bill, and thus render otiose the other Amendments that are grouped with this one. [Laughter.] I do not think that hon. Members ought to laugh at the expense of my hon. and learned Friend.
In case, however, by any mischance that should not happen, I should like to refer to some of the methods of control that are proposed in various Amendments, because I think that they have a value independently of what happens to subsection (1). I refer, first, to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), which requires that anything that is to be made law should be in the form of a Statutory Instrument, that it should be laid before the House of Commons, and that the opportunity at least of a debate upon it should be assured.
Lest anyone should object and say that the Amendment is an insult to the House, because it would be a waste of time of the House, since the Treaties require the Statutory Instrument not to be negatived, I should like to recall not only what I said a little time ago about the manner in which, in any case, binding "decisions" of the Commission and Council are to be given effect, but the fact that in subsection (2) there is a procedure, by Statutory Instrument, for implementing other parts of what would also be our obligations under the Treaties.
I know it can be said that those are obligations over the form and method of which, since they are in obedience to directives, we retain control. However, once a regulation is put before the House, or an affirmative or negative Resolution is moved on a Statutory Instrument, it is not possible to limit either the debate or the vote of the House to a discussion of modalities. If the House negatives it, the House will have negatived the Statutory Instrument as such. Everyone knows that one cannot limit the scope

of the procedure, negative or affirmative, under Statutory Instrument.
So, if it is thought appropriate that directives and decisions of the Commission should be—as they are going to be—embodied in the law of this country by means of Statutory Instruments open to parliamentary procedure, then by parity of reasoning so should be the regulations. I quote my right hon. and learned Friend himself who, when he was confronted with the methods by which other countries had given effect to Article 189, said that he was anxious that we should act, as for ourselves, in accordance with our own procedures. He even said "in accordance with our own constitution". This is it. If that is what my right hon. and learned Friend wants, he has it in the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry; for short of legislation, that is indubitably, in accordance with our procedures, the way in which we make additions to or changes in our domestic law.
For these reasons I regard the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry as the minimum requirement for parliamentary registration and debate, for notification to Parliament and for obtaining explanation, at any rate on major matters, from whoever is at the Dispatch Box.
Amendments Nos. 216 and 78, in different contexts—that in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) refers only to Community law whereas Amendment No. 216 is more at large—introduce a procedure for dealing with regulations when they are in draft. They do more than introduce parliamentary control or surveillance of that which is passing into our law. They would for the first time give some reality to the phrase which is constantly being used by Government spokesmen to the effect that we should participate in the decision-making.
It is sometimes said that we should "take our full part." The acid question is: who is "we"? Unless an Amendment of this kind is made, the "we" will not be the House of Commons. The federation of this and association of that will no doubt be brought into consultation in Brussels, shown successive drafts and asked what they think about


them. No doubt Ministers will be brought into consultation, though always, remember, as a minority, except in certain cases by the grace of God. But the House of Commons will not be brought into consultation.
If the Government really mean what they say when they claim that we—that is, we in the House of Commons—will have a share in the formulation of Community law, let them accept an Amendment on the lines of Nos. 216 or 78, by which this House could, if it wished, debate regulations while in formulation and give Ministers if not their marching orders, then at any rate a fair indication of the wishes of hon. Members and their constituents.

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

8.30 p.m.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that Amendment No. 78 is concerned specifically with Commission regulations and that, therefore, there need be no consultation, even with Ministers, as he suggested there would be, or at best it would be consultation at the discretion of the Commission?

Mr. Powell: I am obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for emphasising that point. I had appreciated that Amendment No. 78 referred to Commission regulations. I dare say that the Commission will carry out all sorts of consultations with all sorts of bodies; but, be it Commission or Council legislation, it will not come before this House of Commons as things stand until it is a fait accompli. We need some means of ensuring—we need it in legislative form, which is the way to do it—that the House of Commons will be able to exercise the formative influence which we are always being promised. Let the Government give effect to that promise.
It is not simply as though there were a desire to interfere with, or trip up, what the Commission or Council might be intending. It is the commonest experience—a very chastening experience of which those of us who have held ministerial office are aware—that when regulations, drafted with the greatest care and with the best intentions, run the gauntlet of the House of Commons, aspects of them which nobody had previously suspected

—which all the associations, federations, civil servants and Ministers had overlooked—suddenly come to light. That is one of the characteristics of the House of Commonś: some hon. Members or some group of constituents suddenly turn out to be affected in an entirely unsuspected way.
It cannot be the intention that it should be possible for this to happen. It cannot be right, even with the warmest will in the world to comply, as we would if we were in, with the spirit of the Community, that we should find ourselves faced with having to take or leave regulations which would have been made differently if we here had had the opportunity to make representations at an earlier stage. It is clear that both Amendments are in themselves of great constitutional and practical importance.
The Amendment which stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) highlights another aspect of Community legislation, in that, when that legislation becomes part of the law of this country, it must be seen in the perspective of our law. Unless it is to be merely a kind of erratic boulder deposited by a glacier, the rest of our law has to take account of it. Everyone knows that law cannot be made in individual pieces, in isolation, without regard to the repercussions; and if that is true of the law which is made in this House, how much more is it true of law which is made primarily for other countries, law which is made on the Continent from a continental point of view, and which is made by bodies on which we have only a minority influence?
It seemed to me that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead was on an extremely important point when he affirmed by his Amendment that from time to time we would have to take a view on where we were getting to. We would have to digest the law of this country as it was developing under the combined impact of Community law and our own legislation. I will not go into details as to the way that he proposed that it should be done; but I entirely agree with him that not only should there be a preceding procedure, which has to be gone through before Community law is embodied in our own, but there should also be a retrospective procedure which enables us to reflect, consider and tidy up afterwards.
I refer finally to Amendment No. 141 in my name, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy also referred. I set out in that Amendment the topics of Community law to which I proposed that the power, supposing that it is a power and not, as I have shown, a nullity, in subsection (1) should be applicable. Throughout these debates, whenever hon. Members have voiced anxieties about the nature of the transfer of parliamentary legislative powers we have been assured that it was within a very limited scope, that it would only take place within the scope of three, four or five topics already well-known and already exemplified in the practice and working of the Community. "Very well, then", I say, "so be it". If that is the ground on which we are to be reassured, and if that is the basis on which we are to accept the sort of innovation which Clause 2 as a whole involves, let alone Clause 2(1), let it be limited, in whatever way my right hon. Friends prefer to draft it, to those subjects. At the moment it is not only unlimited in time—we shall come to that in the context of another group ofAmendments—but unlimited in topic, so that in the whole Clause, let alone in subsection (1), we would be legislating blind—not only in the sense which the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) so indefatigably illustrates, but as to the area which Community law might cover and as to the future developments to which the procedures in Clause 2 might be applied.
Whether or not it be right to apply subsection (1) and its methods to existing Community law, it is an entirely different proposition that we should apply them to future Community law—unrestricted as to topic except by the treaties themselves and without any knowledge or foresight of what might be involved. That is indeed to put our legislative capacity into commission. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was not exaggerating so greatly in the example with which he challenged the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham last week when he said: "Let us suppose the House of Commons put its legislative powers into commission with some other body." We very nearly have just that by the open-ended nature, as regards topic

as well as time, of the powers in the Clause.
In short, the whole group of Amendments which we are debating, and those on which Divisions are in due course to be called, can and should be supported by right hon. and hon. Members irrespective of their views on the policy of British membership of the Community. They are Amendments which in no way break the treaties—that is admitted—and which in no way derogate from any obligations which we have undertaken. What they do is, so far as is consistent with those obligations, to create or restore the normal forms, or as nearly as possible the normal forms, of parliamentary scrutiny and control. That is what my right hon. and learned Friend himself said he wanted to do. He can do it through these Amendments.

Mr. Dell: The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said in a very skilful speech that subsection (1) was otiose. If he is right, the Amendment that I and my hon. Friends have tabled will also prove to be otiose. But, against the possibility that the Committee might decide that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong, it is probably better that I should recommend my Amendment to the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that this was not a debate for or against entry into the Community, and that the Amendments within the group which we are now discussing were all consistent with entry. It is certainly true that the Government could not conceivably hold that there was anything in Amendment No. 7 that was inconsistent with our entry.
The vital problem with which we are here concerned is that of ensuring adequate parliamentary control over the Executive when we are in the European Economic Community. The point the Government have never answered—it was never answered during the whole course of these debates—is why there is no proper provision in the Bill for this matter. It is not even that the Government believe that such provision is not necessary, because they suggested setting up an ad hoc committee. If an ad hoc committee could have recommendations to make on this point, there


is no reason why they should not be embodied in the Bill and provide for the House the protection which is necessary if its control over the Executive is to be maintained.
Only two reasons have been given by the Government against including such provisions within the Bill. The first was an extraordinary reason offered by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today, when he said that to do so would fetter Parliament. I do not understand that explanation. After all, the whole of our constitution depends on the proposition that no Parliament can fetter its successor. If it were necessary as a result of the passage of time, or the experience of membership of the Community, to change whatever provisions were in the Bill, Parliament could change them. The idea that we should not do it now because it would fetter Parliament is absurd.
The other reason the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given on other occasions is the need to consult the Opposition on the matter. One method of consultation with the Opposition on this point would have been to put the Government's proposals in the Bill. Sometimes Bills are amended. This Bill may prove to be an exception, and it may not be amended, but it would have been possible for the Government to put their proposals on this point into the Bill, and, if the Opposition had desired, they could have been amended.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I do not wish there to be any misconception about the Opposition's assessment of the ad hoc committee. The ad hoc committee was proposed to us as a method whereby there should be surveillance of examination of the kind of machinery that might be established. We thought this was a matter which could be discussed under the Bill. It would have been intolerable if we had agreed to set up an ad hoc committee which would be discussing exactly the matters which were before the House of Commons. It was on those grounds that we refused the ad hoc committee. We thought it would be an immediate derogation of the discussions taking place in the House of Commons.

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend is re-emphasising my point that it would have been possible to put proposals in the

Bill in this regard; it would have been possible, under the ordinary course of legislation in the House, to amend those proposals if the House had wished them to be amended. Nothing has been done. No adequate explanation has been given of the fact that nothing has been done.
That is not a point which is in any way inconsistent with entry into the Community. Entry into the Community can be argued and has been argued. The Committee knows my views on that. I would wish to see us going into the Community under a Bill drafted carefully to protect the position of the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) during his speech discussed the question of sovereignty and the relationship of sovereignty to Clause 2(1) of the Bill. Sovereignty is a practical, not just a legal, matter. My right hon. Friend is right in saying that if this Parliament delegated to some other body—whether in this country or abroad—the whole of its powers, it would be ridiculous to say that this Parliament could then withdraw those powers after a lapse of time. Therefore it is not right to say that this Parliament cannot in practice give away its sovereignty. Whatever the legal position, I believe that this Parliament could in practice give away its sovereignty. But we are not doing that in this Bill. We do not, as a result of entry into the European Community, give away our sovereignty. We have the continuing power to recall what we give away. On that basis I am prepared to say that membership of the European Community is consistent with national sovereignty.
If development went in a federal direction, as some people propose, that would involve surrendering sovereignty. Those who say it is not possible for this Parliament to surrender sovereignty are saying that one cannot move in a federal direction. Many people wish, once we are in, to move in that direction. It would involve the surrender of parliamentary and national sovereignty. I do not believe that is significantly done in this Bill.
For that reason I am prepared, as an inevitable condition of entry into the European Community, to accept that certain types of self-enacting legislation, the regulations, will emerge from the Community institutions. I do not say


that the way this is done in the Bill is the right way to do it but in principle I am prepared to accept it.
There would be various ways of doing it. Above all it would have been desirable to spell out, in far greater detail than is provided in the Bill, exactly what is being done. It would have been desirable to provide in the Bill proper checks on what is being done. But as to the principle of doing it, I am prepared to accept, so far as it goes, that this is a condition of entry into the Community. I would be able to go along with it.
The next and vital point is that of parliamentary control over the Executive. It is one necessary and inevitable implication of international treaties that they have some effect, marginal or more, on parliamentary control over the Executive. That happens not simply with the European Communities Bill, although it probably happens with that Bill to a greater extent. It happens for example by our adherence to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It happened by reason of our adherence to the European Free Trade Area. It happens for one simple, practical reason. Governments negotiate with their partners. They come to agreements which are acceptable to them and their partners. They then come back to the House of Commons and say "You may want to change this agreement, but this is the best agreement we can get."
In that sense there is always, as a result of entry into international treaties, some decline in parliamentary control over the Executive, and to that extent it is inevitable. One has to balance whether that loss of parliamentary control is worth the gains one gets from entry into the international treaty. But the fact that this is an inevitable result of entering into such treaties, the fact that in the case of the Rome Treaty it results to a greater extent than ever before, makes it the more vital that there should be in the Bill provisions for parliamentary control.
If parliamentary control is to be exercised over the Executive, information is vital. We have to know what we are doing and the implications. The fact that at this moment, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman admitted, cer-

tain information about existing regulations that it would be desirable that we should have is not available is unfortunate. It shows the difficulty for Parliament in controlling the Executive when we do not have the information available about what the Executive is in certain circumstances committing itself to. This information as to what the regulations are and the implications for our existing law is essential, because without that information parliamentary control is impossible. Parliament cannot control in the absence of necessary information.
This is why we have put down Amendment No. 7. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) said that it really dealt only with the second part of the problem he was concerned with. He was concerned, first with the problem of reviewing drafts of regulations that might be enacted in Brussels, and, secondly, with the implications of whatever was done. I agree that there are these two sides to the problem and that both need to be dealt with. We are here dealing with the second part—the problem of ensuring not merely that we know what is happening but the full implications for the law of our country of what is being done.
We provide for this by means of a piece of machinery—the use of the Law Commissions. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), who drafted the Amendment, has drawn my attention to the fact that on Second Reading of the Law Commissions Act, 1965—on 8th February, 1965, as reported at column 137 of HANSARD—he, with remarkable foresight, indicated that some such provision as this might be necessary if we entered the EEC. That is what we are doing. We wish to make use of the Law Commissions in order to ensure that the House of Commons at regular intervals can have presented to it the full implications of the regulations which have been enacted in Brussels.
I want to consider the wider implications both of this debate and of the Amendment. There is naturally and necessarily deep concern on many questions relating to our entry into the Community. One of the areas of concern relates to the undemocratic nature of Community procedures—the procedures


which produce these regulations. Many people have been searching for all sorts of methods of increasing democratic control over the Community procedures. Various proposals are made. There is the European Assembly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) would insist on my calling it——

Mr. English: It just happens to be its name.

Mr. Dell: I know that my hon. Friend is worried about the name. I am discussing proposals which have been put forward for strengthening the European Assembly—for example, holding direct elections to it. It would presumably be the case that the proposals under subsection (1) would fall within the machinery for more democratic control over the actions of the EEC Commission and of the Council of Ministers.
I do not see this sort of development in a practical future as providing the necessary degree of control, first because it is clear that the European Assembly will not for a long time have the reality of sovereignty. One cannot place sovereignty where one wills. It grows where it is believed to be located, where the people of a country invest as the centre of their national sovereignty. The reason why this Parliament has sovereignty is because the people of the country believe it to have sovereignty.
It would be a long time before a European Assembly could achieve that status. I do not see this as a means of achieving the necessary degree of democratic control. Another warning we should bear in mind in considering an increase in the powers of the European Assembly is that we must beware, whatever we do, if we want democratic control, not so to muddle the machinery that in effect we make the Executive even more powerful. We must not give the Executive an opportunity of confusing the lines of responsibility. If a Minister can come to the Box and say to the House "I have done this by reference to the European Assembly and therefore I can ignore what the House of Commons says", we have not created greater control over the Minister; we have reduced our control. I do not regard the European Assembly as an answer to the problem.
For me the only answer is parliamentary control over our Government paralleled, I hope, by parliamentary control over the other Governments of the member countries.
I read in newspapers, and on these matters I have no other source of information, that the Government are considering introducing a guillotine on the Bill.

Mr. Michael Foot: Impossible.

Mr. Dell: I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) say "Impossible" and I hope he is right. It would be undesirable to do that. No doubt the Government make their calculations and they know whether, if they introduce such a Motion, they could get it through the House. I am not able to judge that because I do not have access to the necessary information. But I can say this. The only excuse for the Government introducing the Bill in this limited form without adequate parliamentary control is because they believe that if they introduced a longer Bill there would be protracted debate and they would not get their Bill. If they can impose a timetable Motion they have no excuse for failing to make Amendments which can be made and which are in no way inconsistent with membership of the Community but which would provide for proper control by Parliament.
If the Government are bringing forward such a Motion they must face their responsibilities and introduce the types of Amendment such as my hon. Friends and I have already tabled. These are simply examples of the sort of Amendments which could be made to the Bill to achieve the important object of parliamentary control. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at Amendment No. 7 and will see it as the type of Amendment which, however it may have to be redrafted, should be accepted for inclusion in the Bill.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell). I say this first because I have signed his Amendment No. 7 and have a lively sympathy with it and hope there will be


a separate Division on it, as was requested earlier. Secondly, he, as a self-confessed supporter of British membership of the Community, has underlined how these debates in Committee can provide Parliament with the opportunity to be a constructive forum for the consideration of the expected future pattern of relations with our sister continental countries in which debates can proceed in a relatively relaxed atmosphere.
One may excuse the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster of having committed a verbal infelicity when he said that some of the Amendments were wrecking Amendments, when clearly it is not the intention of those of us who are addressing ourselves to this set of Amendments to raise the issue of whether or not Britain should be a member of the Community, but rather of the pattern that the association should take in the terms which the House of Commons most intimately understands; namely, the shape of the elective and parliamentary presence in the context of Community law-making.
We are quite right to take advantage of the degree of manœuvre that is available to us in the rules of order, for two reasons. First, we know that the inter-pretion of the Treaty of Rome is not absolutely inviolate. One only has to consider how the qualified voting provisions of Article 148 have been subject to an effectiveness which is different from that envisaged by the authors of the treaty. Secondly, it is not possible to expand the Community from a Community of Six to a Community of Ten, to postulate a Community stretching from Galway to Saxony, from Hammerfest to Messina, without thinking that it will have consequential influences on the way in which we fashion and give effect to law-making.
Therefore, the Amendments address themselves quite properly to two major considerations. The first is the relationship between the Executive and Parliament and how we react to the powers that are vested in the Commission, powers unfamiliar to those of us who are inclined to compare the Commission with the British Civil Service. The second is to what extent the parliamentary presence in Community law-making shall be vested in national Parliaments, rather than in the European Assembly. It was

on that latter point that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead dwelt, and I was delighted again that his judgments concurred with mine.
We have documentary evidence that some hon. Members welcome the prospect of a powerful Commission. These voices have been somewhat muted as the debates have proceeded, but they were there at one stage. I will quote the view that was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) when discussing prospective British membership of the Community in the early months of 1970. He wrote this in a publication called "Solon":
If the Commission … could simply stop us subsidising ourselves … we would have cause for gratitude. We … subsidise the inefficient and out of date.
It was this experience of the behaviour of domestic politicians which led him to conclude
If the Commission can save us from ourselves, they are welcome to our sovereignty as far as I am concerned.
I take a very different view from my hon. Friend. I believe that the concentration of power in the Commission represents an accretion which is recognised as inherently undemocratic within the Community——

Mr. Raymond Fletcher (Ilkestone): Even by one of the Commissioners.

Mr. Biffen: Indeed, even by one of the Commissioners. One of the arguments which has been adduced to attract the British, and one of the flattering things which has been said about our prospective membership, is that we shall bring with us a political experience which will be able to remedy the inherently unsatisfactory power which now resides in the Commission. This has led to a great deal of concentration on the enhanced parliamentary rôle which there will need to be in Community law-making should Britain and the other applicant countries be successful.
This brings us straight to the point made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. The argument is largely whether this enhanced parliamentary authority will reside in national Parliaments or with the European Assembly in Strasbourg. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister clearly has a predilection for an increase in the powers of the European Assembly.


I should like to quote from the Financial Times of 18th March this year, which in turn quotes from an interview given by my right hon. Friend to Le Monde last month. No doubt it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I make a translation of the French rather than say what was actually said. The Prime Minister said:
The first necessity is to enable the European Parliament to function more efficiently. Thereafter we could concern ourselves with gradually developing the powers of that Parliament. On the question of election, I am not dogmatic. I have said already that we have not given very much thought to that affair.
Those views have been reinforced, so we are led to understand, by the recent talks which have taken place between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Chancellor Brandt. At this point of time I do not believe it is a realistic option to place a European Parliament or European Assembly as a serious rival for this House.
I say this for two reasons. First, I believe that this House would not wear it. Secondly, I do not believe that the people of this country would wear it. I do not believe the British public would wish to see parliamentary authority exercised by a European Assembly rather than by any national Parliament. There is the danger that there will be a fudged, half transfer of authority between a continental and a national Parliament—a danger which was referred to by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead.
Clearly, it is on this issue, which is probably the most important of those that we are now relating, that this House has to decide whether within the rules of order which have permitted the modest range of Amendments which the Chair said would constitute "nuts and bolts" we can ensure that there is a bridgehead for a more effective parliamentary representation and presence in the whole process of Community law-making than exists in the processes that now apply within the Community.
It is no answer to be told that what is being willed upon us is no worse than now applies within the Community. That would be a fairly unsatisfactory answer for Parliaments with a less independent history than this one, and for Parliaments with a claim upon the history and the affections of the public less strong

than this one. Yet, in reality, that is the argument being addressed to us. We are told that we have to accept the minimum terms of parliamentary presence, and the ad hoc committee which is supposed to be the measure whereby our self-respect is salvaged offers to us consultation in the processes before law is enacted.
This is wholly unsatisfactory. I do not say that the consultation will be on a par with that offered to the British Medical Association. But we cannot hand over or yield the final parliamentary presence in the law-making process in the hope or expectation that that will be recreated on a European scale in a European continental assembly, even if such a prospect commended itself to the instincts and the loyalties of the people of Britain, which I think it does not.
I conclude with a reference to the Press conference of the late President de Gaulle on 5th September, 1960, when he said:
Now, what are the realities of Europe? What are the pillars on which it can be built? The truth is that those pillars are the States of Europe … States each of which has its own genius, history and language … but States that are the only entities with the right to give orders and the power to be obeyed.
I believe that those words underline a profound reality. They offer the only inspirational basis on which a satisfactory co-operating Europe can be evolved. In parliamentary terms, likewise the rôle of the national Parliaments will remain vital. If we have any sense of self-respect, that alone will drive us into the lobby in support of these Amendments.

Mr. English: I want to take up the suggestion made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in saying that we should discuss some of the details of the subsection to which all these Amendments relate. However, before doing that I wish to comment on one of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell).
I was glad to see that my right hon. Friend and others of my hon. Friends had put down a series of Amendments of the type that he so ably described. It saddens me to realise that there are many people in my party, like my right hon. Friend, who believe in going into Europe but who have taken no interest in the


Bill except when they have felt it necessary to justify voting with the Government rather than considering how the Bill should be amended.
9.15 p.m.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and others of my hon. Friends who have signed his Amendment at least have the courage of their convictions in that they have said that they believe in this country joining the European Community and have taken steps to consider the Bill, to take part in its proceedings and to make suggestions which they, and I think many of us, believe would make it a better Bill without, to quote the awkward word used by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, putting forward what are in any way wrecking Amendments. I may say that all the Amendments put down in my name, although my views are totally different from those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, endeavour to make the Bill a better Bill without being in any way wrecking Amendments, although I would rather the Bill did not pass at all.
I should like to turn now to the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I am very grateful to him for mentioning that he had looked into the question I raised at an earlier stage in this debate of the observer which the GermanBundesrat has at the Council of Ministers. The Chancellor said that the observer was a high official and I believe him to be quite right technically, but the point is not whether the observer is an official or anything else. The position is a little complicated because the Bundesrat is the House which represents the Länder in the German legislature, but it is a chamber with considerable powers, as is illustrated at the moment by the trouble it is causing the Chancellor of the German Federal Republic. It does not really matter whether an observer of that type is an official, a Member, or what. I hope, therefore, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will take up the point and remember that such a person could represent this House of Commons in the same way as one house of the German legislature is represented.
Whether the observer is a Member of this House of Commons or somebody, for example, responsible to the Clerk of the House and therefore an official is

quite irrelevant. The point is whom he represents and whether he has a duty to report on what is going on there to the House of Commons. As I understand it, that is the duty of the observer of the German Bundesrat. His duty is to represent the Bundesrat and to report more particularly to the Lander about what happens.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I merely wish to underline my hon. Friend's point that the observer's reports to the Bundesrat are part of the official record of proceedings.

Mr. English: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His skill at German is well known to us all and I know he is doing research work into this. This is precisely what is wanted, so I think that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was a little offhand when he said that the observer was merely an official. The real point is not who or what does it but whom he represents and whether he reports on the proceedings to us so that we all know what is going on.
At the moment we do not know what is going on. That the House of Commons does not know is quite clear from all that has been said in the course of this debate today. What is even more worrying to many of us is that we are not at all sure how far the Government know what is going on. The reason why I say that is that we see in the newspapers—and this is the only information we have—that the Government's observers are taking part. For instance, we understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or his representatives are already taking part in financial discussions. We understand that because of our prospective entry into the European Community—indeed, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said so today—representatives of the Government, be they civil servants or Ministers, are already taking part as observers in the institutions of the Community.
If that is so, it is not a good augury for the future when the Bill is passed because, although the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave regular and frequent reports of the progress of his negotiations leading towards the treaty that we are trying to ratify, we have not heard one statement or report from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or


from anyone else as far as I am aware, of the details of the discussions in which, the newspapers say, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and representatives of the Government have been taking part, even if only as observers. Presumably they have thoughts on the matters being considered by the Council of Ministers and other institutions of the Community. If they have, we ought to be told.
The President of the European Commission—and one presumes that as President he was speaking on behalf of his Commission which can make proposals to the other institutions of the Community—Dr. Mansholt, according to today's newspapers, yesterday made a statement of great importance, in particular to the next debate on the Bill later this evening or tomorrow.
He said that he believed that civil rights should be given to migrant European workers crossing their own national frontiers into other nations of the Community. I asked for a text of the statement. I shall not quote it in its original, because I am not sure of the nature of the text. However, with the aid of the Library I have some sort of text. On reading it, one realises that what he means by civil rights is primarily electoral rights; certainly the right to vote, and presumably the right to stand for election in a country of which people are not nationals but in which they become residents due to the other provisions of the EEC.
What is the Government's attitude to that proposal? I hope that the Government have an attitude to it and that the House of Commons will be told it before 29th May, because I see later in the statement that the next conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs is to be held in Brussels on 29th May. The statement goes on to relate what will be discussed then. One of the things to be discussed is the problem of political union. Also discussed will be institutional questions which are of deep and the utmost concern to us all. If the problems of political union are to be discussed at Brussels on 29th May, and if the President of the European Commission is suggesting that under this treaty Italians, Frenchmen and Germans should have electoral rights on local authorities and in this House of Commons, I sug-

gest that the Government should have an attitude to that and should tell us what it is. I ask whoever is to reply to the debate to do one simple thing. I ask him to say what instructions have been given on this matter alone to the observers that we have in the institutions of the Community.

Mr. Rippon: There may be some confusion about this, and perhaps I can help. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the periodical meetings of Foreign Ministers to discuss the agenda for the summit. What has been announced is the agreement that has been reached on three main subjects for the summit—the Community's external relations and responsibilities, the development of institutions and progress in the political field, which will be taken at the meeting at Luxembourg on 26th May, and a subject that was discussed in general terms yesterday, the third item on the agenda, economic and monetary union and social progress. It was a confidential meeting but some indications emerged of the sort of points that arose. No decisions could or can be taken prior to the summit.

Mr. English: I said at the beginning that I was not at all sure of the nature of the text which the Library obtained for me. I am not disputing what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about what was being discussed. I take it that he is not disputing what Dr. Mansholt suggested yesterday, his suggestion having been reported in what we commonly call the "heavy" newspapers. His suggestion about one of the matters that should be discussed would probably come under the heading which the Chancellor of the Duchy described as "social progress", and I would like to know the Government's attitude towards this aspect.
If this provision were adopted now, before 1st January, 1973, and the Community said that the rights of migrant workers shall include electoral rights—the right to vote and possibly to stand for election—what would be the attitude of Her Majesty's Government? And if it were adopted after 1st January, 1973, could it be changed under our British electoral law, with or without a Resolution of the House of Commons—that is, under the provisions of the existing Treaty of Rome or by one decision of the Cabinet


and one Division of the House of Commons?
This is highly relevant to the Bill because under this Clause all the rights, powers and obligations arise by or under treaties and, as we have discussed at length, the treaties are not only those that now exist but any treaties that come into existence in future.
These are treaties which would normally, according to our constitutional procedure, be ratified after the passage of a Measure such as the one we are discussing rather than by an Order in Council approved by Parliament on one Division. One is bound to go on to ask whether the same could happen to a complete political union such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead mentioned.
I come to the more detailed application of the Clause because I am deeply concerned about the results that this provision could have on the rights of individuals. I am, therefore, glad to see the Solicitor-General in his place. I want him to take as my premise that the Bill has been passed, that we are in the Community and that Community law applies to this country.
Under Community law an individual has fewer rights than he has under English law to enforce the law. Suppose that everything in Community law were totally just. That cannot be true of any system of law. However, it would seem to be much less enforceable by the individual than is any element of British law
The criminal law of the Community is limited. Strangely enough, while some might object to its being increased, I would regard that as a defect. The defect is that in English law an Act of Parliament, even if it does not expressly set up a criminal offence, represents one in that it is a criminal offence intentionally to break a provision of that Act, unless it goes out of its way to say the contrary. Under Community law that is not necessarily the case. There are very few criminal offences. It is possible to establish penalties or sanctions, the mark of a criminal offence, under the Treaty of Rome. As far as I am aware, however, this has only been done in respect of two agricultural regulations. There are

certain other instances in the other two treaties but altogether there are very few.
9.30 p.m.
This seems extremely unfortunate. If an individual who is working for, say, the Commission or the Council of Ministers intentionally breaks the law, nothing can be done about it except to dismiss him. The simple example of that concerns confidential information. One of the later Clauses in the Bill provides that information that the Department of Trade and Industry has reecived in confidence from companies can be given to the Commission. One of the Clauses of the Treaty of Rome provides that no member of the Commission or its staff shall reveal confidential information. The regulations which provide for the conditions of service of the staff of the institutions also state that no officer or servant of the Commission shall reveal confidential information. All that is very good—exactly in the traditions of our own Civil Service. But all that can happen to an individual if he reveals confidential information is, after the appropriate procedures, for him to be dismissed. Under our law a civil servant who gave away such information could be prosecuted for the criminal offence that it must constitute if we are to preserve confidentiality of information.
I accept that a little later in the Bill there is provision to apply the Official Secrets Acts to a similar situation in relation to atomic energy. I am concerned not with atomic energy but with the situation where a company provides the Department of Trade and Industry with statistics which it does not want to have revealed to its competitors. The Department would not reveal them, but if a civil servant did, as we had in the recent V. & G. case, he could be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Acts.
If the Bill is passed, that confidential information could be passed to the Commission in Brussels and a civil servant of the Commission could cheerfully reveal it knowing that the worst that could happen would be his dismissal and perhaps the loss of his pension, which, if he was a young man, would not bother him anyway. In future, therefore, we may get rather more leaks from Brussels


than we get from Victoria Street about, for example, British business secrets.
The second respect in which it is difficult to enforce the treaties is in relation to civil actions. In any country where there is a system of English law, such as the United States, there is a safeguard that anyone can bring an action to enforce the law. It may be that he requires an order enforcing the provision of the law or that he wants an injunction preventing someone from doing something illegal. This is not so under the law of the Communities. I accept that any member State can bring such an action. As we have so often found in all our discussions the Government, on behalf of the United Kingdom as a State, could certainly bring an action against almost anybody within the Community in an attempt to enforce the Community law.
But what about an ordinary individual? A French association of producers was simply told it had no right of action on a matter of intimate concern to some of its members and to it as an association. Because it was an association, and even though it had legal personality in French law, it was told it could not bring an action, because individual persons—I include individual and corporate persons other than States and similar institutions—can bring actions under Community law only if something has been directly addressed to them or is of direct and individual concern to them.
What is meant by that is not the broad generality of English law under which, for example, any taxpayer can bring a case saying that someone has illegally imposed taxes upon him, or a ratepayer may bring a case saying that someone has illegally used the rates he has paid. Actions can be brought only by specified groups that can be individually identified, much more akin to what is meant in English law by the sort of person who can bring an action for defamation, a much more restricted group of people.
This is a great contrast with the British system of law, under which an individual once brought an action simply saying that nobody could impose upon him the taxation of the year because it had been dealt with only by Resolution of the House of Commons and not an Act, as

was then required by law. Nobody had ever challenged that procedure before, but he challenged it successfully. Such people would be far too amorphous a group under the law of the Communities, as I understand it, to bring an action.
Even more important, any individual may be concerned about a regulation which has not been specifically addressed to him. It might be of deep concern to me as a mere consumer if, for example, a regulation addressed to a sugar company forced it to undertake certain actions which increased the price or lowered the quality of sugar to me as an individual. If such a regulation had been passed wrongly, illegally, unlawfully, under the processes of Community law, I could not say so in court under Community law, as I understand it. If that is not the case, I hope the Solicitor-General will make the position quite clear. The sugar company could say "The regulation was addressed directly to us. We have a right of action". But what about the people affected by it, who may not be persons to whom the regulation is directly addressed?
The other limitation on actions in the Community concerns the persons against whom actions can be brought. One notable example is the one I mentioned earlier. The European Assembly quite illegally describes itself as a European Parliament. It is not a Parliament in the sense of the French Parliament, which was a court, and it is not a Parliament in the English sense of a directly-elected legislature, which has always included a directly-elected portion. An individual cannot bring an action against the Assembly. Although it is not a sovereign body, it regards itself with even greater arrogance than this House of Commons, which is a sovereign body, has ever regarded itself. On one famous occasion the late A. P. Herbert brought an action against the House of Commons. He did not succeed. But he did not succeed merely upon a point of law. No court said to him "You cannot bring such an action against the House of Commons because it is far too august to be dealt with by the law."
That is what the Treaty of Rome says about the European Assembly. It says that the European Assembly is not justiciable in any court, even if it has


broken the law. No individual, as I understand it, can bring any sort of action against a State which has broken the law. A Federal State, the United States, has less economic power than the European Communities have in certain respects, because the Treaty of Rome is far more detailed than the constitution of the United States.
Although the constitution of the United States covers a broader field—it includes foreign affairs and similar matters—the limited field covered by the Treaty of Rome is far more detailed than any United States constitution. If the State of California or New York breaks the law, an individual can bring an action against it. He cannot do so against the European Communities. The only people who can bring an action against a State for breaking a law are another State or certain institutions of the Community. One cannot bring actions against the employees of the Community. One may be able to bring an action against the Commission if its employee has done something. One cannot bring an action against an employee of the Community for anything done in the course of his duties. There are jurisdictional limitations.
It is typical of the cavalier method in which the House has been given documentation that when I went to the Vote Office to get the amended Treaty of Rome—the yellow covered version—I found Article 173 printed incorrectly. One paragraph of it has mysteriously been lifted from Article 175. I had to have recourse to the original treaty to find out what it said. It is an interesting point. It seems that not only are the Government not providing sufficient translations but that, when papers are provided, nobody adequately checks the documentation we receive.
The treaty does start with an original article to the effect that the Court of Justice shall ensure that in the interpretation and application of the Treaty the law is observed. One would think that that would be sufficient. On the contrary, it goes on with a series of provisions. They are similar in a sense to subsection (1) of the Clause. In many respects they are not powers given to the court but are powers given with restrictions to the court. In many cases the

court does not have jurisdiction such as an English court would have to enforce the law.
What provision is there in many cases for enforcing a decision of the court? We have heard a great deal this week about enforcement. We have seen the largest trade union in the world fined £5,000, then fined £50,000 for contempt of court, and thirdly threatened with complete sequestration of its assets if it continues to disobey a court order.
9.45 p.m.
This is not by virtue of any particular provision of the Industrial Relations Act but by the general provision of the law of England that if a court is given power by an Act of Parliament, by the law, if its order is disobeyed, it may enforce it. There are penalties provided in the Bill for someone who commits perjury before the European Court. What power has the Court to enforce its decisions once it has made them? In particular, how does it enforce a decision against officers or servants of the Communities or against institutions of the Communities? The way that is done in this country, in the United States or in any country where a system of English law prevails is that, although one cannot get rid of the Government of the day, in that no court can order the Government to cease existence because they have done something illegal, a court can literally take hold of the individual Minister who has done something illegal and say that he, if necessary, should suffer for his illegal actions.
What power has the court under the European Communities to do that? As I interpret it, it has no such power. I suggest that this is another aspect of the undemocratic quality of the Rome Treaty and even of the deeper European institutions behind it. Democracy is not merely a matter of casting votes or even of holding referenda. In essence, in the first place it must rest on the right of every individual to go to a court of law and say "someone else is not obeying the law and is thereby infringing my rights." That other person may not necessarily be infringing the individual's personal finances, since his pocket may not necessarily be affected in the case, but is infringing his rights because he is disobeying the law. John Donne said
Any man's death diminishes me".


But any illegality of the State against any other person may diminish me because illegalities used against him may one day be used against me or against my friends or my colleagues. One day it may be necessary to go to court in order to protect oneself.
In future, how will we be able to go to court not only to enforce the law but to protect ourselves against infringement of the law? The institutions of the Communities can bring actions against any corporate body or individual person to enforce the law. The reverse is not true. That is the difference and it is a difference which is another aspect of the lack of democracy, because the important point is that the individual should be equal before the law with the institutions of the State or with federal institutions such as those of the Common Market. But that is not and will not be so in this case. We should, therefore, endeavour to put the Bill right in this respect before we put it into the law of England.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRISin the Chair]

Mr. Denzil Davies: By common consent—indeed, by full-hearted consent perhaps—we are agreed that subsection (1) is probably the most important and far-reaching in the Bill.
If it is allowed to become law in its present form, we shall be conferring upon the Executive in this country and also upon the institutions in Brussels an immense extension of powers—and conferring those powers, I believe, at the expense of our Parliament and of our parliamentary democracy. If the subsection becomes law, British citizens will have to obey laws which will not have been passed by majority vote of this Parliament. The laws will become immediately binding. They may be debated in the formative stage or they may not—the Bill does not provide for that—but they will become applicable to our citizens without the majority vote of Members of Parliament. These laws will not have the stamp of the express consent of Parliament.
We are constantly told about the dangers of a section of society not conforming with the law because they feel that the law is unjust in its application to them. I would agree that the basis

of our rule of law is that we accept law in a democratic society despite the fact that we may not agree with it being applied to us. One corollary of the rule of law is that one should be able to go to one's constituents, to the citizens, and say "Look, you may disagree with this law, you may disagree with this Statute, but you must obey it and you must go to the ballot box and seek to change it. I and my colleagues and the party I represent will do our utmost to ensure that your wishes are carried out." That proposition is part and parcel of the concept of the rule of law.
Once we take this away over an area of our lives as we do in this Clause we change the basis on which the rule of law has been established in this country. I shall try to show that Clause 2(1) takes away the powers of this Parliament and changes the law of the country. The undesirable state of affairs introduced by this subsection is brought about by a rigid interpretation of Article 189 of the treaty, the Article which enjoins member States to apply regulations directly once those regulations have been issued. The article provides that these regulations shall have direct legal effect.
When I read the Treaty of Rome the first time I was surprised to find that the framers of the treaty, people whom I had been led to believe were men of vision and imagination, had allowed such an article to creep in to the treaty, should have permitted such an article which is a negation of democracy and parliamentary rights. Not only did they permit it; they intended it. When they enacted Article 189 they took powers from the Parliaments of the Six and concentrated those powers not in their democratic assembly, not in the European Parliament; they deliberately concentrated those powers in the Council of Ministers, meeting in secret in Brussels and in the Commission of civil servants also meeting in Brussels. This has considerably extended the powers of the Executive.
The Governments of the initial Six countries unfortunately have a vested interest in this in the same way as future Governments of this country will have a vested interest in continuing this state of affairs because the result of Article 189 and Clause 2(1) is that Ministers become more powerful, our Civil Service has more authority and the whole power


machine is strengthened at the expense of parliamentary democracy. This is what we are arguing about. This is what is contained in Article 189, a vast extension of the power of the Executive, the provision of another buffer between the Executive and parliamentary control and ultimately the people of the member States.
Much has been said about the power of Parliament to repeal legislation passed now and in future in consequence of and pursuant to treaties. This is not particularly relevant to Clause 2(1). The Chancellor of the Duchy reiterates that the passing of this Bill and the joining of the Community does not involve an ultimate surrender of sovereignty. I would respectfully agree that the emphasis is on the word "ultimate" which has been chosen with some care by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's advisers. In the end there is no doubt that Parliament can repeal the Bill should it become law. In the end there is no doubt that Parliament would extricate this country entirely from the Common Market, but the difficulties of doing so would be great.
Commercial agreements entered into between organisations in this country and European organisations would still be valid according to European law and would still be enforced by the European courts, because the European courts would not recognise an Act of this Parliament breaking the treaty obligations of this country. Our former partners in the Common Market would be able to sue us in one of the European courts for large sums of money.
I accept entirely that ultimately we can break the treaty and withdraw completely, but what worries me is the intervening stage. What happens when we pass laws which repeal parts of the treaty or which are contrary to a few provisions in the treaty? That is where the difficulty arises.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester. Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) gave a colourful example recently to illustrate the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. He said that should Parliament decide that Mr. Harold Lever should in future be Miss Brigitte Bardot, as far as the courts were concerned that would be a legal fact. With respect.

I suggest that his analogy was irrelevant. The correct analogy would be as follows. Suppose the Treaty of Rome said that Harold Lever should for ever remain a person of the male sex, and suppose this Parliament passed a law which said that Harold Lever should in future be Brigitte Bardot; that would be the correct analogy, because that is the situation we shall face. English law has not been faced with a dual legal system, having to choose between Community and municipal law. As time goes on there is little doubt that ultimately the courts will provide that Community law shall prevail over municipal law passed by this Parliament.
I cannot speak for the courts, but one can at least look at the practice of continental courts and see what they have done in a similar situation. Their position is no different in this respect from ours, continental courts apply municipal law; our courts apply municipal law. On the Continent the question has been how far municipal law can be overridden by Community law, and the experience of continental courts is relevant to our own.

Mr. John Roper: Will my hon. Friend say a little about the doctrine of precedence as it is applied in our courts and in the continental courts?

Mr. Davies: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I cannot believe that the doctrine of precedence has much to do with the question of how far a court of law in this country is prepared to apply a future Act of Parliament contrary to the provision of a treaty as opposed to earlier Community law. Looking at what has happened on the Continent, it is likely that our courts will do the same as continental courts are doing and uphold the precedence of Community law.
I will quote briefly from an article by the Legal Adviser to the Commission which has appeared in the Modern Law Review. I will not quote the passages which the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) quoted. This is what the European Court said in a case which involved the Italian authorities:
The transfer by the State from their internal legal system to the Community legal order of rights and obligations entails a definite elimination of their sovereign rights against


which a subsequent unilateral Act would be incompatible with the Community Act.
It is clear that the European courts are moving in this direction, and I should be surprised if the courts of this country did not do the same if faced with the same situation. It need never come to that. The limitation of the sovereignty of Parliament will take place at an earlier stage because a future Government of this country will not feel impelled—indeed will be afraid—to pass legislation which could be contrary to an amendment of the treaty

It being Ten o'clock The Chairman left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

That the European Communities Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Rossi.]

The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 220.

Division No. 148.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kimball, Marcus


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fookes, Miss Janet
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fortescue, Tim
Kinsey, J. R.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fowler, Norman
Kirk, Peter


Astor, John
Fox, Marcus
Kitson, Timothy


Atkins, Humphrey
Fry, Peter
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Knox, David


Balniel, Lord
Gardner, Edward
Lambton, Lord


Batsford, Brian
Gibson-Watt, David
Lane, David


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Goodhart, Philip
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhew, Victor
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Blaker, peter
Gorst, John
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gower, Raymond
Loveridge, John


Body, Richard
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Luce, R. N.


Boscawen, Robert
Gray, Hamish
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bossom, Sir Clive
Green, Alan
MacArthur, Ian


Bowden, Andrew
Grieve, Percy
McCrindle, R. A.


Bray, Ronald
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McLaren, Martin


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grylls, Michael
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gummer, Selwyn
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Gurden, Harold
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Buck, Antony
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maddan, Martin


Burden, F. A.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Madel, David


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mather, Carol


Carlisle, Mark
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maude, Angus


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Chapman, Sydney
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mawby, Ray


Churchill, W. S.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Haselhurst, Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Cockeram, Eric
Havers, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Cooke, Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Coombs, Derek
Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Cooper, A. E.
Heseltine, Michael
Moate, Roger


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hicks, Robert
Money, Ernie


Cormack, Patrick
Hiley, Joseph
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Costain, A. P.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Monro, Hector


Critchley, Julian
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk. S.)
More, Jasper


Crouch, David
Holland, Philip
Morrison, Charles


Crowder, F. P.
Holt, Miss Mary
Murton, Oscar


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hordern, Peter
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj-Gen. James
Hornby, Richard
Neave, Airey


d'Avigdor-Goldmsid, Sir Henry
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Normanton, Tom


Dean, Paul
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Onslow, Cranley


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Osborn, John


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Dixon, Piers
Hunt, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Drayson, G. B.
Iremonger, T. L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
James, David
Pardoe, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Parkinson, Cecil


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jessel, Toby
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Emery, Peter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pink, R. Bonner


Eyre, Reginald
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Farr, John
Jopling, Michael
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Fidler, Michael
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Raison, Timothy



Kershaw, Anthony
Ramsden, Rt. Hn, James




Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Speed, Keith
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Redmond, Robert
Spence, John
Waddington, David


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Sproat, Iain
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Stainton, Keith
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wall, Patrick


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Steel, David
Ward, Dame Irene


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Warren, Kenneth


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Ridsdale, Julian
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Stokes, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wilkinson, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Winterton, Nicholas


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tebbit, Norman
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Scott, Nicholas
Temple, John M.
Woodnutt, Mark


Sharples, Richard
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Worsley, Marcus


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Younger, Hn. George


Simeons, Charles
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)



Sinclair, Sir George
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Skeet, T. H. H.
Tilney, John
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Mr. Walter Clegg.


Soref, Harold
van Straubenzee, W. R.





NOES


Abse, Leo
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lomas, Kenneth


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ellis, Tom
Loughlin, Charles


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
English, Michael
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Armstrong, Ernest
Ewing, Henry
McBride, Neil


Ashley, Jack
Faulds, Andrew
McCartney, Hugh


Atkinson, Norman
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McElhone, Frank


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McGuire, Michael


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Foley, Maurice
Mackie, John


Baxter, William
Foot, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Forrester, John
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgton)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Hudderslield, E.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Garrett, W. E.
Marks, Kenneth


Biffen, John
Gilbert, Dr. John
Marquand, David


Bishop, E. S.
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Marsden, F.


Booth, Albert
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Bradley, Tom
Gourlay, Harry
Marten, Neil


Brown, Bob (N'c'tlie-upon-Tyne, W.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mayhew, Christopher


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Meacher, Michael


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hamling, William
Mendelson, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hardy, Peter
Mikardo, Ian



Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce


Cant, R. B.
Heffer, Eric S.
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Carmichael, Neil
Horam, John
Milne, Edward


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Molloy, William


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Huckfield, Leslie
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hunter, Adam
Moyle, Roland


Cronin, John
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)



Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Janner, Greville
Murray, Ronald King


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oakes, Gordon


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Ogden, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
O'Halloran, Michael


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jennings,J. C. (Burton)
O'Malley, Brian


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
John, Brynmor
Oram, Bert


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson. James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Orbach, Maurice


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Orme, Stanley


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oswald, Thomas


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Paget, R. T.


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dempsey, James
Kaufman, Gerald
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Doig, Peter
Kelley, Richard
Pavitt, Laurie


Dormand, J. D.
Kerr, Russell
Pendry, Tom


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kinnock, Neil
Pentland, Norman


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lambie, David
Perry, Ernest G.


Driberg, Tom
Lamond, James
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Latham, Arthur
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Price, William (Rugby)


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Probert, Arthur


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Edelman, Maurice
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lipton, Marcus
Robertson, John (Paisley)







Roderick, CaerwynE. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Spriggs, Leslie
Wainwright, Edwin


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Stallard, A. W.
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Roper, John
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wallace, George


Rowlands, Edward
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Watkins, David


Sandelson, Neville
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Weitzman, David


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wellbeloved, James


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Swain, Thomas
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Taverne, Dick
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton, N.E.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Whitehead, Phillip


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Tinn, James
Whitlock, William


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Tomney, Frank
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Sillars, James
Torney, Tom
Woof, Robert


Silverman, Julius
Tuck, Raphael



Skinner, Dennis
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Small, William
Urwin, T. W.
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Varley, Eric G.
 Mr. John Golding.


Spearing, Nigel

Question accordingly agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRISin the Chair]

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Denzil Davies: On reflection, perhaps I did less than justice to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper). I did not make due allowance for the fact that he is an economist, not a lawyer. I assumed that he was using the word "precedence" in its strict legal sense. I gather that I might have misinterpreted what he said and that he meant to imply that if Parliament passes a law contrary to an Article of the Treaty of Rome that law immediately becomes applicable as it is a later law and, therefore, takes precedence over a former law.
10.15 p.m.
That is quite correct but in the new situation, with a different legal system running alongside a municipal system, which is an entirely novel situation, I do not think the dilemma can be resolved merely by resorting to this priority argument. Indeed, if that were right it would be possible for countries with a basic constitutional law merely to pass a later law which could take precedence over the earlier one. This is the closest we come in this country to a kind of fundamental or entrenched law and it is my view that the courts will in time give this law precedence over a later Statute. If I am wrong in this no doubt the Solicitor-General will correct me, but since this is a matter for the courts of England to decide I would not have thought that

even the Government would be dogmatic about it.
The limitations upon the power of the House of Commons will arise at an earlier stage because most Governments would be reluctant to seek to pass a law which was contrary to a direct provision of the Treaty of Rome. Article 92 dealing with regional development has been mentioned in our previous debates. Let us suppose that a new Government, a Labour Government, were to seek to introduce a radical policy to aid the regions. They would first have to look at Article 92 and all the regulations emanating from Brussels, and I would be very hesitant to say that that Government would then legislate contrary to what was laid down in the Treaty of Rome. In the same way, as regards the movement of capital out of the country, we might want to legislate but we would be restricted by the thought that there was a prohibition in the treaty, which I would think that the courts of this country would enforce.

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]

Indeed, should we legislate contrary to the treaty the Commission would undoubtedly take us to the European Court and seek to stop us. This has happened in the past. Contrary to the implication of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham, the Commission takes member States to the European Court. It has taken most of the member States to the European Court on the issue of regional development and is now in process of taking France to the Court in relation to certain exchange control restrictions imposed by that country during a monetary crisis. So the Commission, with the aid of the European Court.


could stop this Parliament from legislating in the way it thought best in the interest of the citizens and subjects of this country. That is where the limitation of the sovereignty of this Parliament arises.

Amendment No. 79, which seeks to delete subsection (1) would not destroy the Common Market or our application. I wish it would destroy our application, but it would not do so. What it would do is to concentrate the Government's mind on finding ways of securing better parliamentary control of these institutions and the regulations emanating from them. There are many ways of doing this. Subsection (2) could be used far more liberally if subsection (1) were removed.

The Government should look at the German and Dutch systems and other ways in which we could have some semblance of parliamentary control. I would have thought that this would be in the

interests not only of those of us who oppose the Common Market but even more of those who hope for European unity, because one cannot create European unity by establishing uniformity from Brussels. It is a fallacy, and this can be seen from the history of the United Kingdom, to believe that one can establish uniform laws and thereby create unity between countries of different political and social backgrounds. This can only be done by democratic consent, and this subsection (1) together with Article 189 militates against the creation of the kind of European unity that many pro-Marketeers desire.

I ask the Government to look at this Amendment on the procedures by which Parliament can have some control over this very important and fundamental matter. In that spirit I would have thought that pro-Marketeers and anti-Marketeers could join in voting for this Amendment and removing subsection (1).

The Solicitor-General: The Amendments that we have been considering throughout the day fall within three broad groups. First, standing to some extent on its own, is Amendment No. 7 in the names of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) and others. Then there is a group of Amendments to restrict the scope of the subsection, either procedurally or by reference to subjects. Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), Amendment No. 216, an Opposition Amendment, and Amendments Nos. 260 and 261 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), seek to introduce procedural restrictions. Amendment No. 141 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) seeks to introduce subject restrictions. That is the second group.
The third group of Amendments seek to make a partial or total removal of the words of subsection (1). Amendments Nos. 154 to 158, and 56 and 314 attack words separately. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East, in Amendment No. 275, attacks two words specifically, and in his next Amendment, No. 79, he seeks totally to emasculate subsection (1). That makes the third group.
The Law Commission Amendments are the first group, the procedural Amendments are the second and the removal of particular words are the third group.
I do not want to say anything further during this debate on the points raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). He raised some points which are more germane to Clauses 11 and 12. His more general points about the contrast between Community law and common law are those with which I dealt on 14th March at cols. 346 to 348, and I do not wish to add anything to what I there said, save to refer the hon. Gentleman to observations made by Mr. Bernard Dickens in a talk that he gave before Christmas and published by the College of Law under the title "Introduction to the Common Market".
On page 25 of that document he said that the rules on locus standi are not as

restrictive as those with which we are familiar before courts in the United Kingdom, and non-parties showing a valid interest may be admitted to support or oppose a party's case in certain circumstances. That represents a gloss on what I said to the hon. Gentleman the last time that I dealt with this point.
I now turn to deal with Amendment No. 7, the one raised by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. I apologise to him for the fact that I was not present in the Chamber when he dealt with it. His Amendment raises an interesting and important point. On 17th February, at cols. 657 to 658, I indicated the Government's concern that consequential repeals and amendments of United Kingdom legislation should not only be made in the way they are being made in the latter parts of the Bill, but that they should be available in a convenient and consolidated form. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) asked the question then, and I explained the arrangements being made for consolidation and publication as speedily as possible of a loose-leaf version of United Kingdom Statutes being amended in the European context. No doubt other methods will be needed to ensure that we are alert to keep our own Statute Book in line with changes involved in our European obligations.
The changes suggested by the right hon. Gentleman in his Amendment are not of the kind that would be possible or acceptable. They involve a delay of six months, which would not be easy to tolerate in the context of directly applicable Community obligations. Not all the changes following from Community instruments of the kind to which the Amendment refers are appropriate for consideration by the Law Commission. Many of them are more appropriate for the Government to consider and bring before the House—questions of implementation, enforcement, how to react to Community obligations, and so on.
Questions of inconsistency with Statute law, questions of consequential changes in Statute law, are matters which already fall within the remit of the Law Commission, and it is right for the right hon. Gentleman to have drawn attention to the important rôle which the Law Commission will have to play. I have con-


firmed with the Commission that it will be able to give the requisite attention, within the context of its present functions, to those aspects covered by the points raised by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead.
I come to the broader questions that have been raised and in particular the whole question of direct applicability of Community law.

Mr. Biffen: On a point of order. I rise to inquire, Sir Alfred, whether you have yet decided whether to call for a separate Division Amendment No. 7, which was in the course of being sympathetically considered by the Chairman of Ways and Means earlier this afternoon. At that stage he said that he would give a ruling on the matter to the Committee.

The Temporary Chairman: We shall not come to consider Amendment No. 7 for a very long time.

Mr. Biffen: Oh?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) will appreciate that we do not take it immediately.

Sir Robin Turton: On a point of order. Are you aware, Sir Alfred, that earlier the Chair said that it would be convenient for Amendment No. 7 to be considered with the other Amendments that we are discussing?

The Temporary Chairman: I apologise to the Committee. I agree that we are considering Amendment No. 7 with Amendment No. 79, but the question whether there should be a separate Division on the former will not arise for a considerable time, which is when we arrive at its place on the Notice Paper. There may or may not be a Division on it. In the meantime, the Chairman of Ways and Means will be making his decision.

Mr. Dell: Further to that point of order. Sir Alfred, it is of course true that no Division will take place until we come to the position of the Amendment on the Notice Paper. Nevertheless, it would be useful to the Committee to know tonight, and before we divide on

other Amendments, whether Amendment No. 7 will be selected for a separate Division.

Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order. Sir Alfred. You will be aware that the Chair helps the Committee by indicating at the time of the debate which Amendments can in due course, when they are reached, be divided upon. It was hoped that it would be possible before we conclude our consideration of this group to have confirmation—it is no more than confirmation—that a Division would be allowed on Amendment No. 7.

The Temporary Chairman: As far as I know the Chairman of Ways and Means has not announced his decision on this matter. It is not for me to make that decision. Only he can make it.

Mr. Jay: I support the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) in rising to a further point of order on this subject. Sir Alfred. Although the Division would occur, if it will occur, at a later stage, there is surely no reason why the Chair should not rule now that when that time comes, there will be a Division. Are you aware that that would be of great help, Sir Alfred?

The Temporary Chairman: I thought I had made it clear that the Temporary Chairman cannot rule on this matter. It is for the Chairman of Ways and Means to make the decision.

Mr. Jay: Further to my point of order. In view of the desirability of the Committee having the decision of the Chairman of Ways and Means, are you aware that it would be possible, Sir Alfred, for these deliberations to be adjourned while the Chairman resumes his place in the Chair? I am sure that the Committee would be glad to adjourn to enable this to happen.

The Temporary Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman must contain his impatience a little longer. I sympathise with his point of view and I have no doubt that the Chairman of Ways and Means will be here shortly and will then no doubt announce his decision.

The Solicitor-General: At least I have been in order in responding to the speech


of the right hen. Member for Birkenhead. There is no doubt that as a result of an earlier ruling we are discussing his Amendment as part of this group.
I was about to deal with the broader question of the nature of the Community system; the essence of the Community system and the question of the direct applicability of Community law. I remind the Committee that we are especially concerned with Article 2 of the Treaty of Rome and the establishment of the Common Market, an organisation within which goods can pass freely from one country to another and under which they can be freely available throughout the Market on a basis of fair and equal competition.
It is for this reason, notwithstanding the point made by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies), that it is necessary for there to be some rules regulating the operation of that Market which operate in identical terms throughout the Market area. This system can be achieved by a single coherent system of directly applicable Community laws applying to each Member State within the spheres covered by the Treaties.
For this reason the Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) seeking to limit the operation of Clause 2(1) to the four topics of the Commission—customs tariffs, the common agricultural policy, sugar and the European Coal and Steel Community—is unacceptable because it seeks to limit the scope of the Treaty and the organisation which we seek to join more narrowly than is compatible with the original Treaty.
10.30 p.m.
I borrow with gratitude the phrase which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East frequently borrows from Aneurin Bevan who said, "Why use the crystal ball when you can read the book?". I will borrow another phrase used by my right hon. and learned Friend, who has a gift for phrases in more than one language, that the Treaty illustrates amply enough what is involved. That is what he told the Committee this afternoon. He referred the Committee to Article 3 and I refer it to Article 2. I do not want to read

them at length but they both make quite clear that the objectives of the Treaty of Rome, leaving the other treaties aside, go clearly beyond the four topics referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend—the establishment of the Common Market, harmonious development of economic activities and so on—and plainly have been recognised for some time as involving greater economic unity between Britain and the Continent of Europe.
I will invite study of another book and refer to the election address of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West in 1964 which shows plainly that he then visualised the wider scope of what was involved. He said:
Our efforts throughout the world have been for wider and freer trade. The fault is not ours if the economic unity with Britain which most of Europe desired has not yet been achieved.
And then in a characteristic imperative forecast he concludes:
But it will come.
It seems difficult to accept the restrictions involved in Amendment No. 141 as being consistent with the prophesy that:
the economic unity with Britain which most of Europe desired … will come.
For the same kind of reason, if he talks of what the Community is about I would invite the Committee to conclude that the group of Amendments dealing with procedural restrictions are equally unacceptable. I was sorry not to hear the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry——

Mr. Powell: I had not realised that my hon. and learned Friend was moving on to the next group of Amendments. There is a distinction which he has overlooked between the full scope of Article 3 of the Treaty and the stages by which legislation in this House would follow the development of the Community within the scope of Article 3. The general purpose of my Amendment—this is policy apart—was not necessarily in conflict with Article 3 but it was to ensure that any major development even within Article 3 involved a return to this House for renewed authorisation to apply the procedures of Clause 2 of the Bill.

The Solicitor-General: I follow the distinction that my right hon. Friend


is making but I return to the fact that the four categories which he selected as part of the text of Amendment No. 141 are a rather random selection of four particular topics and do not cover the field which has been plainly known to be covered by the Community up until this time and more recently than 1964.
So much for the subject restrictions sought to be imposed on subsection (1). As I have said, none of the procedural restrictions can be commended to the Committee. I have indicated why that in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry is not acceptable. The other is Amendment No. 216 requiring all Community instruments under this subsection to be laid in their first draft subject to Affirmative Resolution, before Parliament. The third category is that identified in Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East, stating that instruments emanating from the Commission itself should be subject to special procedural commitment. I invite the Committee to conclude that they cannot be dealt with in that way. All the instruments with which we are here concerned under subsection (1) are required to take direct effect, and the interposition of any one of those three procedures would interfere with the effectiveness of the direct applicability of those instruments.

Mr. English: I quite take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point and see that the wording of the Amendments may be unacceptable. In that case, will he give an assurance that he will table something acceptable? The German Bundestag is informed of the self-executing regulations when they are only proposals. Either it or a committee of it discusses them when they are only proposals on the agenda of the Council of Ministers, and on many occasions it has said to its Minister after a discussion, "This is the way we should like you to vote on this." Is there any reasons why we cannot do that?

The Solicitor-General: I was going to deal with that point, and I shall come to it. But first I was going to make a distinction that is relevant to the point the hon. Gentleman raises. The instruments which would be the subject of Amendments Nos. 77 and 78, namely, Commission instruments, are of a limited kind. Broadly

speaking, under Article 155 of the Treaty of Rome, the Commission may exercise powers to issue instruments in so far as the powers are conferred on it by the Council for the implementation of rules laid down by the Council. That is the first category.
The second general category in which the Commission may operate is in the administration of the safeguard provisions of the Treaty, such as Article 25, providing for the suspension of the collection of duties, making provision for duty-free tariff quotes. So the scope of Commission instruments is narrowed.
I make that point now because Article 2 of the constitutional law of the German Bundestag applies only to instruments emanating from the Council of Ministers. There is no special provision in the German constitutional law dealing with instruments emanating from the Commission, and even so far as it exists to deal with instruments emanating from the Council of Ministers, it exists not for legislative purposes but to require the Bundestag to be given notice of proposals emanating from the Council and express its owns views upon it, which are not thereafter binding on the German Government. They are not binding on the German Government; they are an expression of view, but they go no further than that. Of course, the German Government pay a great deal of attention to them. It is in that sense that I advise the Committee that because of the nature of directly applicable law there can be no opportunity of the kind suggested for intervention at the stage of enactment.
But I repeat that the Government are anxious for the widest possible discussion and consideration of parliamentary involvement, in information, scrutiny and debate, at each earlier stage of forthcoming Community instruments, so far as possible.

Mr. Jay: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, contrary to what he has just said, there is nothing in Article 155 which limits the powers of the Commission to make decisions within some ambit laid down by the Council? What Article 155 says is that the Commission shall:
have its own power of decision and participate in the shaping of measures taken by the Council and by the Assembly in the manner provided for in this Treaty;


The words do not limit its power of decision to any framework laid down by the Council. That is perfectly clear in Article 155. Therefore, the Solicitor-General seems to be misleading the Committee.

The Solicitor-General: No. The passage in Article 155 referred to by the right hon. Gentleman refers to the role of the Commission in the formulation of measures taken by the Council, and it is the last sentence which deals with the matter to which I referred, namely, the exercise of powers conferred on it by the Council. In any event, it does not invalidate my general point that the operation of the Commission is limited, in broad terms, to the safeguard provisions—for example, Article 25—or the decision of particular cases within the ambit of policy or to operating on policy lines laid down by the Council of Ministers and not beyond that. Even in the section referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, it is made plain that it participates
in the manner provided for in this Treaty.

Mr. Jay: With all respect——

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not intervene if the Solicitor-General does not give way.

Mr. Jay: On a point of order, Sir Alfred. Would it be in order to invite the Solicitor-General to give way so that we might clear up this important matter of fact?

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order.

The Solicitor-General: I turn to the wider question——

Mr. Jay: On a point of order. If there is to be any reality in this discussion, surely when the Solicitor-General is plainly wrong it must be, by some method of procedure, possible for hon. Members to raise a question of fact and obtaina rational answer from the Minister.

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order.

The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Gentleman asserts with confidence that I am plainly wrong. He does not assert

that I am wilfully wrong. I am doing my best to advise the Committee——

Mr. Jay: Mr. Jay rose——

The Solicitor-General: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my sentence. Because the right hon. Gentleman asserts so confidently that I am plainly wrong, I shall take an early opportunity of making sure of the position. But I have explained the matter as accurately as I can to the best of my ability. Nothing which has been said or which can be said invalidates my central proposition, that the Commission operates within the sphere of administering the policy laid down by the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Jay: Mr. Jay rose——

The Solicitor-General: I shall look at the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman and will return to it if I find that there is any reason to be shifted from my ground.

Mr. Jay: Mr. Jay rose——

The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Gentleman cannot ask for more at this stage.
I turn to the question of the direct applicability of Community law——

Mr. Jay: Mr. Jay rose——

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not interrupt if the Solicitor-General will not give way.

The Solicitor-General: I turn to the point raised——

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Sir Alfred. Are we or are we not in Committee? Is it not usual during a Committee stage for hon. Members to ask questions in order to clarify points before the discussion continues? Are we departing from this general rule?

The Temporary Chairman: We are in Committee, but it is entirely up to the hon. Member who is speaking to decide whether he should give way.

Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order. As a Committee stage is an inherent part of the democratic process, would I, as a relatively new Member,


be correct in believing that if a Member does not wish to discover where a difference of opinion lies the Committee will draw its own conclusion?

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair.

10.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Member for Battersea, North has drawn my attention to the proposition that the penultimate clause of Article 155 invalidates what I said by reference to the last clause. I have expressed my opinion that it does not do so. The point of difference is clear. I have indicated my willingness to look again at what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It does not invalidate the general proposition which I advanced that the interposition of a legislative procedural clause in respect of directly applicable Community law is not something that I can commend to the Committee.

Mr. William Baxter: On a point of order, Sir Alfred. The Committee is considering a grave constitutional issue. I ask you to consider whether it is proper that there should be any dubiety in the mind of the Solicitor-General on this very important point of the interpretation of what is contained in this Article. If the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot give a clear and straightforward answer to the question, the Committee should adjourn until he is able to do so.

The Temporary Chairman: It is not for me to direct the Solicitor-General how he should interpret any rules or regulations.

Mr. Baxter: Further to that point of order, Sir Alfred. If, as I appreciate, it is not the responsibility of the Chair to take such action, can the Chair, from all its wisdom and power, ask that the Leader of the House now give consideration to an adjournment of the Committee until the Solicitor-General is sure of his facts?

The Temporary Chairman: No. It is certainly not any part of the duty of the Chair to ask for the adjournment of the Committee.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Sir Alfred. This is a point which is within the competence of the Chair. The

Chair can at any time accept a Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. The Chair is the sole arbiter whether to accept such a Motion. If that is so, I would seek to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again," so that we may debate the issue whether to vote on this until such time as we have the Solicitor-General's advice. If you will accept such a Motion, it will enable my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and myself to put our points to the Solicitor-General and to explain them to him in more detail and it will also enable the Solicitor-General to ask his advisers and the other right hon. and learned Gentlemen now present to obtain the information which he appears to lack at the moment and which he has admitted he will supply——

The Temporary Chairman: Order. It is not possible for the Chair to accept a Motion to report Progress during the course of another hon. Member's speech.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Sir Alfred. I take it, then, that after the Solicitor-General has sat down I can seek to catch your eye and move to report Progress if, as would appear to be about to transpire, the Solicitor-General does not deal with the points that the Committee wishes him to deal with.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is within his rights in asking for that.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: Further to that point of order, Sir Alfred. Some of us have sat in the Chamber for most of the day. We have collaborated with both Front Benches so that the Solicitor-General could reply at a reasonable time. The Solicitor-General needs more time than is provided by the raising of these points of order to read Article 155 and to answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). It is no crime to make a mistake in this House. One's reputation is elevated if one honestly admits it. I see the hon. and learned Member taking no advantage of this time to read the relevant article of the Treaty of Rome.

The Temporary Chairman: I fail to see that that is a point of order for the Chair.

The Solicitor-General: I accept that it is no crime to admit a mistake if one is conscious of having made one. I equally accept that it is no crime—and indeed part of my function—to indicate with due humility to the House of Commons where I am uncertain. Equally it is my function to give an answer to the point to the best of my ability. I have already answered the point raised by the right hon. Member. I have, before doing so, and in the course of these exchanges, looked at the Article to which he refers.
I emphasised when I first spoke that the Commission exercises the powers conferred on it by the Council for the implementation of the rules laid down by the latter. But, with reference to the preceding sentence, the Commission has its own power of decision in the manner provided for in the Treaty.
I indicated my view that that gave it power to act in the implementation of policies laid down by the Council. If there is any reason for believing that I am wrong in that, I shall tell the Committee. I see no reason for believing so at the moment, having looked at it again. I am capable of being found wrong, but I have done my best to advise the Committee.

Sir Elwyn Jones: In view of that matter would the Solicitor-General also take into consideration the provisions of Article 189 which provide that, in order to carry out their task, the Council and the Commission shall make regulations and take decisions—so that the decision-making power of the Commission seems to be referred to expressly in Article 155 and Article 189. Would the Solicitor-General, in dealing with this matter, at least give the Committee an assurance that he will return to it before we leave consideration of Clause 2?

Mr. Jay: Would the Solicitor-General also take account of the fact that Article 155 says:
in order to ensure that the Common Market works efficiently and develops satisfactorily, the Commission shall …
do various things. There is no reference to the Council. Then it says that the Commission shall have its own power of decision, which in Article155 is in no way limited by any mention of the Council. Additionally it can take part in the shaping of powers taken by the Council

and by the Assembly in the manner provided for in the Treaty.
Is it not clear, even to those of us who are not lawyers, therefore, that he is wrong in saying that the Commission's general power of decision is limited by any actual occurrence?

The Solicitor-General: My modesty and humility, mentioned in the question put to me by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, diminishes in the face of his increasing and over-confident assertion of his view that I am wrong.
The more I look at the provision the more I am impressed by the fact that the Commission shall have its own power of decision in the manner provided for in this Treaty. It is unthinkable that the Commission could have powers of decision entirely at large without reference to the Treaty.
The point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) referred to something I mentioned before when I said that the third function of the Commission was to take decisions in respect of individual cases. It has the power of enforcement or application of regulations and decisions taken by the Council of Ministers. I remain of the opinion that those are the three broad categories: a decision, under Article 155, within the context of measures taken by the Council, a decision on individual matters, and a decision in relation to such matters as Article 25. If I turn out to be wrong in any essential feature of that in the course of the debate on Clause 2, I shall tell the Committee about it.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Would my hon. and learned Friend give way in order that I may assist?
I think that the clue to this matter can be found in the different meanings of the word "decision" in Articles 189 and 155. If one reads the two the meaning is clear. Article 189 gives the Council and the Commission equally a power to issue all the types of edict, to use a neutral word referred to in Article 189—thatis, regulations, directives, decisions in the special sense of Article 189, and recommendations—and to deliver opinions. That is self-contained within the article.
Article 155 is in a more general sense. When it says "have its own power of decision" it is showing that there is a


general power of independent decision not in the technical sense of the word "decision" in Article 189.
I think that my right hon. and learned Friend will find that that interpretation is confirmed by the language of the former translation of the Treaty which instead of having the words
have its own power of decision
used the phrase, if my recollection is right,
dispose of a decision of its own.
That is a general power to show that it can take an initiative outside of the Council. But Article 189 stands by itself and gives them a power evidently to issue all these types of edicts.

The Solicitor-General: There is no difference between us. Plainly, the Commission within the defined area has its own power of decision and can exercise it in relation to decisions, regulations or directives so far as it has the power. The important feature is that in Article 189 one has the phrase,
… in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty …
and in Article 155 the phrase,
… in the manner provided for in this Treaty.
I have given some examples of other Articles in which decision-taking power is assigned to the Commission, but the point is, of course, that the Commission has powers to take decisions in various fields, but that the fields in which it is enabled to make what might be called legislative instruments are limited, as I have indicated, within the territories laid down by the Council within the field of the Treaty. I come back to the point that direct applicability of Community law is, as is manifest from the words of Article 189, an essential and central feature of what we are talking about.
The scope for directly applicable Community law arises not only in Article 189, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West suggested. A decision under Article 189 is binding in its entirety upon those to whom it is addressed. The regulations under Article 189, as they are set out, are required to be directly applicable in all Member States.
There are certain other provisions in the Treaty. I cannot recollect all of them

now, but Article 12 has been relied upon and held to have directly applicable force in member States in the Van Gend en Loos decision, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East referred. It is not possible for my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West to argue that the Treaties do not require an area of directly applicable law. He argued valiantly to that effect but could succeed only if he succeeded in eliminating the word "directly" in the phrase in Article 189.
It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
He was seeking to disprove the existence of what to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East is axiomatic. My right hon. and learned Friend has on more than one occasion rehearsed the provisions of Article 189. Certainly he did so on 10th May, 1967. In column 1618 of that date, he spelt out clearly the direct applicability flowing from Article 189 of regulations made in that way. It is something which has always been identified as necessary in the Market we are joining.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Powell: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not only taking issue with my interpretation, he is also taking issue with that of his right hon. and learned Friend, who assured the Committee that this Amendment did not involve an amendment of the Treaty, from which it must surely follow that the Treaty, although it may require direct applicability in some senses, does not require direct applicability in the special manner provided for in subsection (1).

The Solicitor-General: My right hon. Friend has misunderstood the position on that point. For the Amendment to be in order at all it must not be an Amendment designed to vary the terms of the Treaty. If we refer back to what the Chairman of Ways and Means said on 29th February, giving his ruling, it will be seen that he stated that the Bill was providing:
the legal nuts and bolts which are necessary if the United Kingdom is to be a member of the Communities … this is not a Bill to approve the basic treaties, Amendments designed to vary the terms of those treaties are not in order …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 29th Feb., 1972; vol. 832, c. 269.]


This Amendment does not set out to vary the terms. It sets out to challenge the proposition which in the view of the Government is necessary if the United Kingdom is to be a member of the Community. One of the necessities is to provide—and this has been well known since the 1967 White Paper—for the direct applicability in this country of Community law.

Mr. Powell: This is an important and difficult point. In that case on my hon. and learned Friend's interpretation, if this Amendment were made we would not be fulfilling the terms of the Treaty and we would be in breach of it. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend would also address himself to the statement of his right hon. and learned Friend that Clause 2 (1) is the best way of giving effect to our treaty obligations, which can only mean that there are other ways of complying with the requirement of direct applicability.

The Solicitor-General: I take my right hon. Friend's points. On the first point it is not a question whether this Amendment involves an amendment of the treaties. What it would do, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East pointed out, would be to emasculate the Bill in an important respect and to remove from it one of the essential "nuts and bolts" for the United Kingdom to be a member of the Community. That is something I cannot commend to the Committee.
On the second point, my right hon. Friend says that the Chancellor identifies this as the best way of achieving this objective. I dare say it would be possible to find some other formulation of the proposal. I find it difficult to see what that could be. I regard this as the correct and effective way, and the best way of achieving what is a necessary objective if this country is to be in a position to ratify the treaties. I can think of no other way of achieving it. It may be the best way, and it is certainly the one which commends itself to me and which I commend to the Committee.

Mr. English: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman go back to the point from which he was deviated by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay)?

Mr. Jay: Diverted!

The Solicitor-General: That deviation was so far back down the track that I am already on another lap of the road. I return to the point that this way of doing it, through Clause 2(1), is the right and necessary way. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton asked why it was in this form. My answer to him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is that the structure of the Clause deals with all such matters as have direct effect under the treaties which are to take effect by that form, limiting itself to that which is in accordance with the treaties, no more, no less. If we look at the effect of the words involved, each has a function. The "rights" we refer to are, for example, the rights of the individual to enforce remedies flowing to him under Community law, and the right to have social insurance premiums in one member State counted to his credit for social insurance purposes in another. The "powers" referred to are the powers of the Commission, for example, under Article 85(3) to declare an agreement to be one to which the general restriction of Article 85(1) does not apply. "Liabilities" include an obligation to pay a levy on goods imported. "Obligations" refer to an imminent liability to pay a levy or a continuing obligation to comply, for example, with transport regulations. "Restrictions"—again one refers to Article 85(2), and the restriction there contained to prohibit certain restrictive agreements and to render them void. "Procedures" are those with which the House is familiar under Article 177——

Mr. Shore: The Solicitor-General is now helping the Committee. For the first time we are getting an indication of the meaning of these important words. I invite him to present to the Committee as soon as possible a paper on the definitions of these terms.

The Solicitor-General: I regret that I am not able to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's invitation. I am responding to the particular Amendments now before the Committee, dealing with each of these words and explaining why those words, which have been the subject of specific Amendments, are being given effect to by the terms of Clause 2(1) to the extent to which it is necessary by


the terms of the treaty without further enactment. I emphasise that an obligation to that extent was accepted from the outset and has been accepted on a continuing basis by all the original member States. The Belgians and Luxem-bourgeoise amended their constitutions to enable them to do so. The Dutch had no need to make such an amendment although they did so. The other three member States made no amendment to their constitutions but accepted at the outset the direct applicability of Community law.
As was outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East with the consistency with which he has analysed these matters ever since 1962, as long ago as the Costa case in 1964, the Jan Gend en Loos case in 1963 and the San Michel case in 1965 this proposition of direct applicability and supremacy has been apparent. It has been appreciated from then onwards and accepted throughout the Community, defined as necessary in this country by the previous Government and it is presented to Parliament in this Bill now.
The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) posed a conundrum. He said that, although Article 189 was part of the original design in the Treaty of Rome, had not the Luxembourg compromise changed all that? Why is it still necessary to provide for direct applicability? The answer is that direct applicability on a common pattern of law throughout the Community remains necessary. It does not involve supra-nationalism in the sense of an extinction of our sovereignty. It involves our participation in the making of that directly applicable law, and that participation is required by the Treaty in the light of the Luxembourg compromise. We shall certainly be sharing the sovereignty in respect of that directly applicable law, but that sharing of a pooled sovereignty does not in the concept of the Common Market avoid the need for a directly applicable system of law. It is, as it always has been, part of the pattern accepted throughout the Community states which we knew we would accept. Clause 2 does that which is necessary to implement it and I commend it to the Committee.

Sir Robin Turton: We are considering also on Amendment Nos. 56 and 314 the phrase "and similar expressions", which so far my hon. and learned Friend has not touched on.

The Solicitor-General: I will, if I may, respond to my right hon. Friend on that point, Sir Alfred. The phrase "and similar expressions" which appears in the latter part of Clause 2(1) and in Schedule 1 is concerned with the concept of an enforceable Community right. It is intended to illustrate that a comparable expression such as "enforceable Community obligation" or "enforceable Community restriction" wherever it appears is to be given the meaning that flows from Clause 2(1). It is an obligation or right or restriction which is directly applicable and which flows from the framework of directly applicable law.
It is right to say that the phrase itself does not appear elsewhere in the Bill, but it is a convenient phrase for use in any other legislation which may come hereafter, and any legislation which may refer to enforceable Community rights or obligations can be identified in subsequent legislation as a right or obligation which is directly applicable, flowing from Clause 2(1) as it stands.

Mr. Jay: Will the Solicitor-General answer the important question which was put to him by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and which the hon. and learned Gentleman has not in fact answered? Let us suppose he is right in assuming the regulations are directly applicable. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it was not the case that decisions are not directly applicable and therefore under the Bill all decisions would require the normal statutory instrument procedure in this House.
Article 189, as I understand it, says clearly that regulations are directly applicable; it says that directives are not directly applicable. It does not say whether decisions are applicable. I had always assumed, as the right hon. Gentleman had assumed, that decisions are not directly applicable and are not covered by Clause 2(1). This is most important. May we take it that the Solicitor-General agrees that decisions under Article 189


are not directly applicable and therefore would require a statutory instrument procedure in this House?

The Solicitor-General: I have answered the question already. I will answer it again in a much shorter way than that set out in the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. Decisions are directly applicable upon those to whom they are addressed. The method by which they take effect is by Article 192. They do not require the interposition of a Statutory Instrument of this House.

Mr. Michael Foot: The Solicitor-General's answer was most unsatisfactory since he did not attempt to cover the ground which was traversed in a number of powerful speeches from many quarters of the House.
I begin by referring to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell). The Committee was grateful to him for that speech and for the new suggestions he made as to the way in which this House should deal with the problems which arise from parliamentary control over what is to be done if ever we enter the EEC. I hope that my right hon. Friend will join us in the rest of the debates.
The more this House, and indeed the country at large, listens to the full case on the Bill the more it will be recognised that it is perfectly possible for substantial Amendments to be made to this Bill, even if we are to go into the EEC. That is partly what we have been arguing about this evening, and I hope that when the time comes for selection the Chair will be prepared to accept Amendment No. 7 for a vote, as well as the other matters. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be encouraged to table further Amendments on these lines so that the House of Commons will be assisted in discharging its proper obligations under the Bill.
11.15 p.m.
The Solicitor-General, who has replied to the debate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) has said, has assisted us considerably, although I must say that on a Clause of this character which deals, as everyone agrees, with matters of the foremost importance, and with the question of all such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions, it is a peculiar fact that for the first

time in the House on this Bill and on this Clause we have had definitions from the Government of what these rights, powers, obligations, and liabilities are.
Some of us had sought separate debates on all these questions. We had sought a separate debate on the rights involved, on the powers, liabilities, and obligations involved. If that had been the arrangement, it would have enabled the Government to come forward and state to the House exactly what these matters are.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney asked the Government to make a statement on this. We are entitled to have it. There should be, in a Bill and a Clause of this character, which is to incorporate all these matters into the law of this land, a passage where all these matters are spelt out. It is the first time we have had an indication of what are the rights, powers, liabilities and restrictions covered by this Clause. It has come at the fag end of the debate.
This is the first time we have had an effort by any member of the Government to define these definitions. It would have been much better for the proper conduct of the Bill if we had been able to have a separate debate on all these matters so that the Government could have given replies.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in the debate this afternoon, greatly added to the Government's difficulties—and that was appreciated on all sides, and perhaps by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster himself. He said, when challenged in a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), that we had not incorporated some of the procedure which they have in the German Bundesrat. He said that we did not do it that way because we do it by our own methods and procedures, but that is exactly what we have not done. This Clause is nothing to do with our procedures. There has never been a procedure like this in Parliament, never a Clause like this presented to this Parliament.
We are incorporating into a system which has nothing to do with our methods and procedures, but incorporating methods which are understood and appreciated by the House and which have been our normal methods of dealing with these different questions. These were major


Amendments which we put to Clause 1 when we were arguing about that and which have figured in the debates now. Almost all the other Amendments, except the comprehensive one, the emasculating or castration Amendment——

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The vasectomising Amendment.

Mr. Foot: There are different ways of describing it, but the Government like to translate it from that into the castration Clause. Leaving that aside, all the other Amendments are designed to do exactly what the Cancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said he wanted to do—to make the procedures conform to the normal ways in which we deal with all these matters in the House of Commons: by Affirmative Resolutions, Acts of Parliament, and the full legislative process. These are the ways in which we deal with these matters in the House of Commons, the ways in which we argue and the way in which we could deal with these matters in a large range of the questions in the Bill on entry.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman caused great difficulty for his Government when he said that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends had taken this choice because they wanted to deal with it by our methods. If he votes against these Amendments he will deny our own methods. Even worse, he said he could not agree to the Amendments because, in some way or other, we might fetter this House of Commons—or did he mean the Government? Of course, what he meant was that we might fetter the Executive. There is nothing in these Amendments which would fetter this House. So what was the hon. and learned Gentleman meaning when he said that we must not have measures which will fetter us in any way?
The hon. and learned Gentleman must know that he is taking measures which go far beyond any kind of arrangement which has ever been put to this House before. When we propose that there should be other ways of dealing with the situation, he says that we must not fetter this House of Commons. That is an extraordinary way to describe our normal procedures.
I come to the major question that the hon. and learned Gentleman has failed

to answer. It is the argument that was put by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) about the meaning of the words "without further enactment". The Government claim that direct applicability means the same as "without further enactment". That is their argument. But the words do not mean the same. They mean something different. In other parts of the arrangements under other parts of the Treaty of Romethere are measures which are directly applicable but which do not have to be dealt with without further enactment.
We anticipated the criticism in this respect, and we tabled Amendment No. 249, to be taken in the next group of Amendments. The Solicitor-General will have plenty of time to get all the answers to the questions that he was unable to deal with just now. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman's case is that "direct applicability" means the same as "without further enactment". The Amendment to which I have referred enables him to say exactly that.
Amendment No. 249 reads:
Clause 2, page 2, line 28, leave out 'without further enactment to be' and insert 'directly to be applied and'.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman accepted that, he would carryout what he was claiming to carry out. He would carry out his obligations under the Treaty of Rome. But in the process he would weaken greatly his arguments against all these protections for which we have been arguing.
If we write into the Clause what it really means, the words "directly to be applied", the question whether we have further enactment and in what form it should be do not arise. It is only when the words "directly to be applied" are misconceived and wrongly translated into the words "without further enactment" that an argument is created against having the protections for this House for which we have been arguing.
I suggest that the Solicitor-General should have been prepared to accept this Amendment. Certainly we shall press it when we come to it later. But he should have been willing to present that argument to the Committee now.

The Solicitor-General: When we come to Amendment No. 249, no doubt I shall


be able to explain why it is not right in its approach. But if, instead of the words that the hon. Gentleman criticises, we were to make the Clause read
All such rights … as … are directly to be applied … in the United Kingdom",
we should be obliged to go on to say "shall be directly applied". The consequences of that definition should be "shall be directly applied". That has the same effect.

Mr. Foot: They do not have to be applied by a Clause of this nature. They can be applied by other means which we have in the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted a few minutes ago that this is the best way to do it. He said "It is the only way that I can commend to the Committee." He did not go on to say that this is the only way to do it, because he knows that if that is his argument——

Mr. Heffer: Others have said that.

Mr. Foot: I know that others have said that. I think that the Chancellor of the Duchy said it earlier today. But the Solicitor-General is cleverer, because he knows that if he were to say that he would be arguing that this is the only way to do it. He is not saying that, is he? He does not say that for a moment, does he? It is not the only way to do it, is it? [Hon. Members: "Answer."] He says that it is the best way. It is the way that he commends, it is the way that he prefers—but it is not the only way. Of course not.
We know why the hon. and learned Gentleman has to say that. If he were to say what the Prime Minister said and what the Chancellor of the Duchy indicated—that it is the only way to do it—he would immediately clash with the Chair. This is the argument which we have had on many occasions in Committee. If it is said that this is the only way to do it, that we must stand by the Clause and that we cannot have it altered in any particular whatsoever, then indeed the Solicitor-General is criticising the Chair, because he knows that the Chair has permitted our Amendment, even the so-called——

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Vasectomy.

Mr. Foot: Even the so-called castration Amendment. The Chair has per-

mitted that, because it has agreed that all these matters should be particularised.
A few minutes ago the Solicitor-General was in difficulties about the nuts and bolts. He does not understand the Ruling, even though he defended it so passionately at the time. Whatever else we may say about the Amendments, all the Amendments, ours and everybody else's they can be divided into two classes. Either they are nuts or they are bolts. Possibly they are both. They may be both, but they cannot be anything else. If the Solicitor-General argues no, as a few minutes ago he came near to arguing, they are not nuts, they are not bolts, they are part of the machine itself, then he is in difficulties with the Chair.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman had thought out the matter more carefully before, the Government might have made a different approach to the whole question when we had the earlier discussions about the Ruling given by the Chair. The Government might have looked differently on the affair. Indeed, before there had been any Motion about the Chair, we might have had discussions about the nature of the Bill.
However, the Solicitor-General was the author of the Bill. He is extremely proud of it and of this particular Clause which, according to his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, is nonsensical and, according to many other hon. Members, is highly restrictive. The Clause, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman is so proud, is the central fact. The beauty of the Clause, as the Solicitor-General no doubt thought, was that it made impossible the reopening of these great debates. But the House of Commons is not so easily thwarted; it is not so easily dealt with by clever lawyers. The House of Commons will not be deprived of the possibilities of debating these matters by lawyers who say, "All the anomalous and awkward facts about entry into the Community, all the difficult obligations, we will roll into one Clause which it is almost impossible for anybody to disentangle."
For a while it looked as though that would happen. But the Chair ruled that it was perfectly possible to disentangle the Clause and that this did not interfere with the Treaty of Accession. That was the ruling, was it not?

The Solicitor-General: The Solicitor-General indicated dissent.

Mr. Foot: It is no use the Solicitor-General shaking his head. That is the ruling. The ruling now is that it is perfectly possible for the Clause to be disentangled. Otherwise, we would not be debating the Amendments.

The Solicitor-General: I have already quoted the Chairman's ruling. I have not got it before me, but the hon. Gentleman knows what it was: that it was not admissible to accept Amendments which involved amendment of the Treaties, but that it was admissible to accept Amendments which considered and sought to vary the ways and means of putting ourselves in a position to adhere to the treaties. That is what we have been debating at such length. However, it still remains open to the Government to say, and we do say, that these features are essential to put us in a position to adhere to the treaties.

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEUin the Chair]

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Foot: The Solicitor-General has proved the case, and I am grateful to him for his intervention. He said that it is open to the House of Commons, irrespective of whether we wish to enter the Community, to choose the means by which it intends to do this, and that apparently applies not merely to the decisions or other forms of making arrangements under the treaties or under the Clause, but also to the regulations under the Clause. The Solicitor-General shakes his head. He has just said that we can choose which way we want to do this.

The Solicitor-General: What I have tried to explain is that it is within the rules of order, as laid down by the Chair, to discuss the ways and means of fulfilling these matters. The Government come before the Committee and say that it is essential, in order to meet that objective, to choose this presentation if we are to be in a position to ratify the treaties. The whole debate today has been on the proposition that it is necessary to provide for the direct applicability of Community law if we are to be in a position to ratify. That is the position.

Mr. Foot: The Solicitor-General has now got into the position in which he can contradict himself even in a short

intervention. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite have not followed the point, but they will get it eventually. If they will assist the Committee by staying around for a bit longer, they will catch up eventually. Almost every hon. Gentleman opposite is capable of catching up if he addresses his mind to the problem, even when the Solicitor-General is trying to confuse us.
The situation is quite simple. The Chair has ruled, by accepting certain Amendments, that there are different ways in which these objectives can be secured. Therefore, the House of Commons has the right to decide which way it wants to secure them, and that is what we have been debating. Then the Solicitor-General, in the second part of his intervention says, "No. The Government insist that it is essential to do this." That is another way of saying that this is the only way to do it. It is not essential to do it this way. The House can make up its mind. The Solicitor-General must make up his mind about which way he is going to place the argument. He must try to think it out. Perhaps he is the person who needs most instruction on the matter, because it is the case that we have every right in this House of Commons to choose the ways in which we want to carry these measures into operation.
That is why we urge the Committee so strongly to vote for all these provisions which have been presented to ensure that we have much better parliamentary control than is laid down in the Clause. We say that in particular because there is no parliamentary protection whatsoever under the Clause. We are asked to do something without any parliamentary protection at all.
What the Government are saying is that it is their preference that Parliament should have no scrutiny over these matters. They prefer the system under which this would be done automatically, without the House of Commons having any power of intervention. The Government prefer the system whereby the power of the Executive—both here and in Europe—is inordinately increased as a result of the Bill. That is the fact. That is what we are debating.
If such a proposition had been presented to the House in another context—leave aside Europe—if the Government had come forward with a Clause


of this nature in another kind of Bill and said that they wished to have some self-executing law in this country—that is to say, once the Executive made a decision it should go through the House without further enactment—and they wanted to give power to some other executive body to have such extraordinary powers over Parliament itself, the whole of the House would have thrown the idea out.
In certain circumstances the Conservative benches would have thrown it out. I remember the debates in 1945 on the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act. That Measure was passed by the House of Commons, but after the immediate post-war period, Conservative hon. Members in opposition having taken strong objection to giving what they considered to be widespread powers to the executive, steps were taken to reverse the process.
But the scale of powers involved on that occasion was nothing compared with what we face in this Bill. It is extraordinary that more hon. Members are not prepared to listen to the arguments, for never before has an executive proposed that the House of Commons should surrender its powers on such a scale.
Some people say "We have lost our powers, anyway." That is not true. Whatever is said about Prime Ministerial or Cabinet Government, the fact remains that the House of Commons still retains considerable powers. This Measure proposes the largest surrender of those powers to the executive and in some degree to an executive which will not even be answerable to us.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said that this situation reminded him of what

happened in the last days of the Venetian Republic, when they voted away their powers. But my hon. and learned Friend was generous to the Government because, after all, in the days of the Venetian Republic they voted them away by 500 to 80, which by modern standards might be called full-hearted consent. But they regretted their action very soon. The people outside in the Square of St. Mark's called out "Viva San Marco." As far as I recall, it was a proposition to hand over power to a French President, and once he had that power, he handed the people over to the Austrians. I do not know to whom the Government propose to hand us over when they have satisfied the present French President.

The Solicitor-General should treat more seriously the nature of the request that he is presenting to hon. Members. It is clear that hon. Members will do their duty only when their eyes are open to the facts and when they openly declare that they agree with the Government and accept what they are asking.

In this case the Government are asking for the surrender of powers to the executive on an enormous scale, a scale not required for entry into the EEC. They do not have any shred of a claim for making such a request and the House of Commons should be ashamed of itself if it is prepared to agree to such a proposition.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Pym): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Pym) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 247 Noes 206.

Division No. 149.]
AYES
[11.39 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bossom, Sir Clive
Cockeram, Eric


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bowden, Andrew
Cooke, Robert


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bray, Ronald
Coombs, Derek


Astor, John
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Cooper, A. E.


Atkins, Humphrey
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Costain, A. P.


Balniel, Lord
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Critchley, Julian


Batsford, Brian
Buck, Antony
Crouch, David


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Burden, F. A.
Crowder, F. P.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Carlisle, Mark
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Biggs-Davison, John
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj. -Gen, James


Blaker, Peter
Chapman, Sydney
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Churchill, W. S.
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Body, Richard
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Dixon, Piers


Boscawen, Robert
Clegg, Walter
Drayson, G. B.




du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kinsey, J. R.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kirk, Peter
Ridsdale, Julian


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kitson, Timothy
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Emery, Peter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Eyre, Reginald
Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lane, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fidler, Michael
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rost, Peter


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Le Marchant, Spencer
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott, Nicholas


Fortescue, Tim
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sharples, Richard


Foster, Sir John
Longden, Gilbert
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fowler, Norman
Loveridge, John
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fox, Marcus
Luce, R. N.
Simeons, Charles


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sinclair, Sir George


Gardner, Edward
MacArthur, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gibson-Watt, David
McCrindle, R. A.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Gilmour Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McLaren, Martin
Soref, Harold


Gilmour, Sir John (File, E.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Speed, Keith


Goodhart, Philip
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Spence, John


Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stainton, Keith


Gower, Raymond
Maddan, Martin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Madel, David
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Gray, Hamish
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Green, Alan
Mather, Carol
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Grieve, Percy
Maude, Angus
Stokes, John


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds
Mawby, Ray
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gummer, Selwyn
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Gurden, Harold
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Miscampbell, Norman
Tebbit, Norman


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Temple, John M.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moate, Roger
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Money, Ernle
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Harison, Brian (Maldon)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Tilney, John


Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Hector
Trew, Peter


Hastings, Stephen
More, Jasper
Tugendhat, Christopher


Havers, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Charles
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hayhoe, Barney
Murton, Oscar
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Heseltine, Michael
Neave, Airey
Waddington, David


Hicks, Robert
Normanton, Tom
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hiley, Joseph
Nott, John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Onslow, Cranley
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Wall, Patrick


Holland, Philip
Osborn, John
Walters, Dennis


Holt, Miss Mary
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Hordern, Peter
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Warren, Kenneth


Hornby, Richard
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Parkinson, Cecil
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Pink, R. Bonner
Wiggin, Jerry


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wilkinson, John


Hunt, John
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Winterton, Nicholas


Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


James, David
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Raison, Timothy
Woodhouse. Hn. Christopher


Jessel, Toby
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Woodnutt, Mark


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Redmond, Robert
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Younger. Hn. George


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rees, Peter (Dover)



Kershaw, Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Mr. Michael Jopling and


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Allaun, Frank, (Salford, E.)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)


Armstrong, Ernest
Buchan, Norman
Dalyell, Tam


Atkinson, Norman
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cant, R. B.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Carmichael, Nell
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)


Baxter, William
Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Deakins, Eric


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Delargy, H. J.


Bidwell, Sydney
Coleman, Donald
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund


Biffen, John
Conlan, Bernard
Dempsey, James


Booth, Albert
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Doig, Peter







Dormand, J. D.
Kaufman, Gerald
Pavitt, Laurie


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kelley, Richard
Pentland, Norman


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kerr, Russell
Perry, Ernest G.


Driberg, Tom
Kinnock, Neil
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lambie, David
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Dunn, James A.
Lamond, James
Price, William (Rugby)


Dunnett, Jack
Latham, Arthur
Probert, Arthur


Eadie, Alex
Leadbitter, Ted
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Edelman, Maurice
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lipton, Marcus
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Ellis, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


English, Michael
Loughlin, Charles
Roper, John


Ewing, Henry
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Faulds, Andrew
McBride, Neil
Rowlands, Edward


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCartney, Hugh
Sandelson, Neville


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McElhone, Frank
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Foley, Maurice
Mackenzie, Gregor
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Foot, Michael
Mackie, John
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Forrester, John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Marks, Kenneth
Sillars, James


Golding, John
Marquand, David
Skinner, Dennis


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marsden, F.
Small, William


Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Spearing, Nigel


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mayhew, Christopher
Stallard, A. W.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Meacher, Michael
Steel, David


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert



Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mendelson, John
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Hamling, William
Mikardo, Ian
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Hardy, Peter
Millan, Bruce
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Heffer, Eric S.
Milne, Edward
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hooson, Emlyn
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Swain, Thomas


Horam, John
Molloy, William
Tinn, James


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Torney, Tom


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tuck, Raphael


Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Urwin, T. W.


Hughs, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Varley, Eric G.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, Roland
Wainwright, Edwin


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Murray, Ronald King
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon
Wallace, George


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Ogden, Eric
Watkins, David


Janner, Greville

Weitzman, David


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Halloran, Michael
Wellbeloved, James


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
O'Malley, Brian
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oram, Bert
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Orbach, Maurice
Whitehead, Phillip


John, Brynmor
Orme, Stanley
Whitlock, William


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oswald, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)



Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Pardoe, John
Mr. Tom Pendry.


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 213, Noes 244.

Division No. 150.]
AYES
[11.50 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Buchan, Norman
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Deakins, Eric


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Delargy, H. J.


Armstrong, Ernest
Cant, R. B.
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund


Atkinson, Norman
Carmichael, Nell
Dempsey, James


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carter, Rey (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Doig, Peter


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)



Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Dormand, J. D.


Baxter, William
Coleman, Donald
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Conlan, Bernard
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Driberg, Tom



Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bidwell. Sydney
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Dunn, James A.


Biffen, John
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Dunnett, Jack


Body, Richard
Dalyell, Tam
Eadie, Alex


Booth, Albert
Darling, Rt. Hn. George



Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Edelman, Maurice


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)




Ellis, Tom
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Perry, Ernest G.


English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Ewing, Henry
Lomas, Kenneth
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Faulds, Andrew
Loughlin, Charles
Price, William (Rugby)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Probert, Arthur


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Foley, Maurice
McCartney, Hugh
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Foot, Michael
McElhone, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael
Roper, John


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mackie, John
Rowlands, Edward



McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Sandelson, Neville


Golding, John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Maginnis, John E.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Gourlay, Harry
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marks, Kenneth
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marquand, David
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marsden, F.
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Sillars, James


Hamling, William
Marten, Neil
Skinner, Dennis


Hardy, Peter
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Small, William


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mayhew, Christopher
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Heffer, Eric S.
Meacher, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Hooson, Emlyn
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Horam, John
Mendelson, John



Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mikardo, Ian
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Millan, Bruce
Stodart, David (Swindon)


Huckfield, Leslie
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Milne, Edward
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Moate, Roger
Swain, Thomas


Hunter, Adam
Molloy, William
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Molyneaux, James
Tinn, James


Janner, Greville
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Torney, Tom


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tuck, Raphael


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Urwin, T. W.


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Moyle, Roland
Varley, Eric G.


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Murray, Ronald King
Wainwright, Edwin


John, Brynmor
Oakes, Gordon
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Ogden, Eric
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Wallace, George


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
O'Malley, Brian
Watkins, David


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Oram, Bert
Weitzman, David


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Orbach, Maurice
Wellbeloved, James


Kaufman, Gerald
Orme, Stanley
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Kelley, Richard
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Kerr, Russell
Oswald, Thomas
Whitehead, Phillip


Kinnoch, Neil
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Whitlock, William


Lambie, David
Paget, R. T.
Woof, Robert


Lamond, James
Palmer, Arthur



Latham, Arthur
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Leadbitter, Ted
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham. N.)
Pentland, Norman
Mr. Tom Pendry.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, Mark
Emery, Peter


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Eyre, Reginald


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Chapman, Sydney
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Astor, John
Churchill, W. S.
Fidler, Michael


Atkins, Humphrey
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Clegg, Walter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Cockeram, Eric
Fookes, Miss Janet


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Cooke, Robert
Fortescue, Tim


Batsford, Brian
Coombs, Derek
Foster, Sir John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cooper, A. E.
Fowler, Norman


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Fox, Marcus


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Cormack, Patrick



Biggs-Davison, John
Costain, A. P.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G


Blaker, Peter
Critchley Julian
Gardner, Edward


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Crouch, David
Gibson-Watt, David


Boscawen, Robert

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Crowder F. P.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Bowden, Andrew
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Goodhart, Philip


Bray, Ronald
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry



Brinton, Sir Tatton
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Goodhew, Victor


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Gorst, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gower, Raymond


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Dixon, Piers
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Drayson, G. B.
Gray, Hamish


Buck, Antony
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Green, Alan


Burden, F. A.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Grieve, Percy


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)







Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Scott, Nicholas


Grylls, Michael
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Sharples, Richard


Gummer, Selwyn
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Gurden, Harold
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maddan, Martin
Simeons, Charles


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Madel, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mather, Carol
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maude, Angus
Soref, Harold


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mawby, Ray
Speed, Keith


Haselhurst, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Spence, John


Hastings, Stephen
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sproat, Iain


Havers, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stanton, Keith


Hawkins, Paul
Miscampbell, Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Steel, David


Heseltine, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Hicks, Robert
Money, Ernle
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hiley, Joseph
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Monro, Hector
Stokes, John


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
More, Jasper
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Holland, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Holt, Miss Mary
Morrison, Charles
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hordern, Peter
Murton, Oscar
Tebbit, Norman


Hornby, Richard
Neave, Airey
Temple, John M.


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Normanton, Tom
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Nott, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Onslow, Cranley
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Osborn, John
Tilney, John


Hunt, John
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Trew, Peter


Iremonger, T. L.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Tugendhat, Christopher


James, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Jessel, Toby
Pardoe, John



Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Parkinson, Cecil
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Waddington, David


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pink, R. Bonner
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Wall, Patrick


Kershaw, Anthony
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Walters, Dennis


Kimball, Marcus
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Ward, Dame Irene


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Warren, Kenneth


Kinsey, J. R.
Raison, Timothy
Weatherill, Bernard


Kirk, Peter
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Kitson, Timothy
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Redmond, Robert
Wiggin, Jerry


Knox, David
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Wilkinson, John


Lane, David
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Winterton, Nicholas


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Woodnutt, Mark


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Ridsdale, Julian
Worsley, Marcus


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Loveridge, John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Younger, Hn. George


Luce, R. N.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



McArthur, Ian
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McCrindle, R. A.
Rost, Peter
Mr. Michael Jopling and


McLaren, Martin
St. John-Stevas, Norman
 Mr. Kenneth Clarke.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

12 midnight.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I beg to move Amendment No. 213, in page 2, line 25, after 'restrictions', insert
'except any restrictions affecting the rights of entry of British Commonwealth citizens into the United Kingdom'.
The wording of the Amendment is rather more restrictive than it might have been, focussing attention upon restrictions affecting the rights of entry of Commonwealth citizens into the United Kingdom and not mentioning a problem which is at least as important, namely the right of entry of such citizens into the extended Community. But at least this

Amendment has the advantage of highlighting the tip of an iceberg of potential discrimination on grounds of race which is inherent in the transition of this country from Commonwealth to Community.
The point of the Amendment is twofold. The first objective is to prevent any future restrictions under Clause 2(1) of the Bill by prerogative legislation from Brussels which may impose on member States restrictions upon the entry of nationals of third countries. That would include Commonwealth countries so far as the Community is concerned. That would reduce still further the somewhat restricted and eroded rights of entry


which Commonwealth citizens now enjoy under the Immigration Act, 1971. It would restrict the right of entry into the United Kingdom of Commonwealth citizens. This restriction would come about because of a fiat of Brussels generally, in its impact, and laying down additional restrictions from those now in force, at some future date, on the entry of people from third countries to Community countries. The effect might be to add further restrictions to the already limited right of entry which Commonwealth citizens have. This would come upon us direct from Brussels and have an impact upon the immigration laws.
The second objective of the Amendment is to avoid a situation arising in which the nationals of the Community countries would have preference, under Community provisions, over Commonwealth citizens for entry into the United Kingdom. In each case the focus ofattention—the universal discourse—is entry into the United Kingdom.
It is perhaps unfortunate that the Amendment did not consider the much wider question—the Committee will have to consider it to some extent today, and later—of the rights of entry of Commonwealth citizens into the Community from the United Kingdom. It would be a breach of faith on the part of this country to the Commonwealth if we did not seek to ensure safeguards for Commonwealth citizens in regard to their entry into this country. We should go further and consider the position in regard to entry into other member States in the Community.
That is the last legacy which we owe to the citizens of the Commonwealth who are the ultimate heirs of our Empire. It is the tip of the iceberg alone on which we are able to touch in this Amendment. But beneath the surface lurks concealed the somewhat sinister mass of potential discrimination, on grounds of race, against British nationals by continental members of the Community, because, of course, concealed beneath the words "Commonwealth citizens" lies the fact that many Commonwealth citizens coming to this country will be of different race from the indigenous inhabitants of the United Kingdom. This matter was discussed in Committee on the Immigra-

tion Act. Equally important is the fact that many people who have right of abode under Sections 1 to 3 of the Act will be people of a race other than the indigenous races of the British Isles.
Under the surface concealed, therefore, lies this potential discrimination on grounds of race by continental members of the Community against British nationals. Whatever one's feelings about race or about the racial constitution of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom, one has to face the fact that for the future, under the guise perhaps of the liberalising Articles 7 and 53 of the Rome Treaty, which provide for non-discrimination on grounds of nationality against citizens of the member States of the Community, it may well be that racial discrimination will operate.
Before I turn to deal with the rather crucial matter, I draw attention to the evolution of Articles 7 and 53 in connection with two other Articles, 48 and 49. They deal with the free movement of workers within the Community, and certain measures have already been taken by the Community to bring those Articles into practical effect in the Community. At the same time, Articles 7 and 53 deal more specifically with nationality and it is in the possibilities of conflict involving race and nationality in regard to these four Articles that I think we are concerned in this Amendment.
Article 7 provides:
Within the scope of application of this Treaty, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.
That is a clear prohibition directly enforceable and directly applicable against discrimination on grounds of nationality. Similarly, Article 53 provides:
Member States shall not introduce any new restrictions on the right of establishment in their territories of nationals of other Member States, save as otherwise provided in this Treaty.
Again, as I understand it, this is a directly enforceable obligation or restriction upon the Member States not to impose new restrictions on the right of establishment, which I should have thought to mean the right to settle in the territories of Member States.
These two Articles are directed to achieve non-discrimination on grounds of nationality. Articles 48 and 49 deal with free movement of workers within the Community. The steps that have been taken already by the Community, as I understand it, are four—three major and one ancillary—and they are steps for the implementation of the provisions of Articles 48 and 49 to ensure free movement of workers within the Community, allowing nationals of member States to move to another member State to take up offers of employment there without prejudice to their social rights or rights as workers.
These are important measures and the steps which have been taken are of significance. The first step was Regulation 15 of 1961, establishing the principle of national priority within the Community and of Community priority over third countries in filling job vacancies within the territory of one of the member States of the Community. That was the first step in implementing Articles 48 and 49. The second step was Regulation 38 of 1964, which brought frontier and seasonal workers within the arrangements for permanent workers. The principle of national priority, which was mentioned and retained in Regulation 15, was abolished except for safeguard clauses to provide for cases of emergency. The provision for Community priority was not abolished. Equality of employment rights with nationals within the member States of the Community was guaranteed.
The third stage was Regulation 1612 of 1968 which came into force on 19th October, 1968, and provided that all Community workers should have access to employment in the territory of member States under exactly the same provisions as nationals of that member State. Work permits were abolished as were the safeguard clauses retaining national priority in certain cases. The principle of Community priority over third countries was retained, leaving only one ancillary matter to be dealt with, namely the matter of the right of workers to remain in the territory of a member State after they had been employed there for a certain period of time. That matter was taken up in Regulation 1251 of 1970, there being a special exception for Luxembourg on account of her small territory and comparatively small population.
By these steps we have reached a situation where Articles 48 and 49 dealing with free movement of workers have been implemented under the Treaty. This raises acutely the problem of free movement of nationals. Are they to be free to undertake their rights as workers under Articles 48 and 49 or are they to be subject to discrimination on the grounds of race or some other provision? Is the right which they have freely to move to be eliminated, eroded or reduced on grounds of some definition of nationality which may have the effect of disguising discrimination as non-discrimination on grounds of nationality? That is the problem which has been focused for us in part of the Treaty of Accession—a declaration ancillary to the Treaty dealing with the definition of nationals for the purpose of the Treaty legislation.
That can be found at page 118 of Command 4862. The definition of nationals of member States is not dissimilar from the definition of persons who have a right of abode under the Immigration Act, 1971. There is a close family resemblance, but there are differences. The vital thing which has to be faced by the Committee and by the people of this country is whether, in agreeing to this definition within the four corners of the Treaty, we have gone far enough to ensure that workers in this country who are Commonwealth citizens and who are nationals of this country, or who would be regarded in this country as nationals in the ordinary sense of the term, are taken out of that category. If this is so, there is no escape from the dilemma that under the guise of the definition of nationality discrimination may exist on grounds of nationality against those who are in the ordinary sense of the term British nationals.

Mr. Maurice Foley: I am listening carefully to what my hon. and learned Friend is saying. Would he define the difference between the attitudes of the previous Government and of this Government in terms of admission of East African Asians to this country and British nationality and what he is describing as discriminatory in terms of the European Community?

Mr. Murray: It is a kind invitation, but I must decline it. I will take the illustration with which my hon. Friend


has presented me. It is obvious that the category of persons most likely to be discriminated against by the provisions I have been dealing with are exactly those persons—the Kenya British subjects.

Mr. Foley: If successive Governments of this country have discriminated against East African Asians, how can we regard the Treaty of Rome and the European Community as being detrimental in this respect?

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Murray: I do not agree with the gloss which my hon. Friend puts on this, and I do not want to be diverted to something which has no direct bearing on the Amendment. We are confronted with a new aspect of discrimination. Hon. Members of the Committee who desire to see achievements would not wish to hide their heads in the sand and avoid this confrontation merely on the ground that efforts to avoid discrimination in the past have not been wholly successful. That is why I want to concentrate on this aspect of discrimination and not get involved in other historical aspects.

Mr. Stanley Orme: My hon. and learned Friend must allow me to put the record straight. Some of my hon. Friends voted against the Labour Government's proposals for dealing with the East African Asians. I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend will vote in the same way on this issue?

Mr. Murray: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his useful intervention and for putting the record straight.
The Amendment, for the reasons I have mentioned, may not be wholly satisfactory, but I press the Government to tell the Committee their intentions. Any Government seeking to carry through the spirit of the Treaty of Rome and our accession to it and to follow through our own liberal principles, which fortunately are still a matter of consensus between the two sides of the House of Commons, are under an obligation to make a declaration of intent.
A difficult task lies ahead of the Government. On the one hand, they must see that the provisions of the Treaty of Rome in regard to the free movement of

labour are carried out so that our own citizens reap the full advantages that the Treaty may offer. On the other hand, they have obligations, which may be in conflict with the ones I have just described, to Commonwealth citizens. We are still a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. I hope that the Government will help us by making a declaration of intent and telling us how they see the balance between these two tasks being achieved.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I hope that members of the Committee will support the Amendment moved so ably by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray). I have a considerable immigration problem in my constituency. A recent survey showed that the area in the United Kingdom in which the greatest number of coloured children were born was the London Borough of Brent. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). I have consistently opposed discrimination in terms of immigration laws, although one in every nine West Indian students come to my constituency.
I am proud of what we have been able to do in the Commonwealth in establishing economic, social and cultural ties. This has been a contribution to a kind of laboratory of inter-racial living. This is one of the main reasons why in general I oppose the whole of the legislation. I accept that it is almost impossible to foster the Commonwealth at the same time as one enters the Common Market.
The points made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith were particularly relevant in drawing attention to the kind of problem with which we shall be faced if the Amendment is not accepted. We shall find discrimination occurring with no protection for the kind of multi-racial laboratory society of the Commonwealth which I have mentioned.
The fact that the Government have relaxed the immigration from East Africa will mean that a third of those immigrants will come into my borough. I am grateful to the right hon. Leader the Secretary of State for Education and Science for providing extra money for an increased number of school places. She has realised what our problems will


be if we are to receive into our borough some 1,500 families, probably with three children to each family. This is the way to tackle the problem—not by restricting the number of immigrants but to look at the problems and to seek ways in which to solve them.
If harmonisation with the laws of the Community, which provide for free movement of labour and capital, results in an open-ended commitment to the Common Market whereas the immigration laws will be applied to people from the Commonwealth, this will present an intolerable situation. This is a position which the Amendment seeks to safeguard.
I want to raise a point which concerns me greatly, and it relates to the directions which are being issued on standards for doctors, pharmacists, nurses, opticians and dentists. Our National Health Service has been extremely grateful for the help given to the Service—especially in regard to junior hospital doctors—by those who come from the Commonwealth.
Some two or three years ago, following problems which had arisen particularly from the Asian countries, the General Medical Council laid down the rule that before a Commonwealth doctor could be put on the Medical Register he must pass a language test. Therefore, if the Amendment is not accepted, the farcical situation may well arise that people from the Commonwealth, whose native tongue is English, will have to face the hurdle of a language test before being allowed to join their profession in this country, whereas people who come from Italy. France, Germany, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg, whose native language is not English, will be able to come here straight away without having to pass a language test.
This is a direct affront to the whole British Commonwealth. It will mean that we are making two sets of rules, with the set of rules which we are accepting in the Treaty giving preference to the people of Europe and making second-class immigrants of people from the Commonwealth.
On those grounds, unless something can be negotiated in National Health Service provisions in comparability of standards of competence and of academic qualifications, and of permission to

practise in a specialty in which they have been trained, and unless safeguards for the Commonwealth citizens who have served us so well in the National Health Service in recent years are put into this Bill, it will mean a great injustice to people who have served and to nations which have supported us.
The problem, which is for our children and grandchildren, and not so much for ourselves, is not so much how to preserve peace between Germany and France as how one can build between the developing and developed nations comparable standards which make the gap not so wide and not so much a cause of conflict. This is the whole concept of every race, colour and creed and people of different skins and religion being able to mix in harmony in a community. The British Commonwealth is the way we have experimented in this.
The Amendment seeks to preserve that experiment which has gone on so successfully, and to enhance and improve it. On these grounds, I hope that a wide section of the Committee, irrespective of whether they wish to enter the Common Market, will support this Amendment.

Mr. John Morris: The whole Committee will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), with his record and his experience of immigration, for the way in which he outlined his support for this Amendment.
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray), who moved the Amendment, that it is fairly restricted. It seeks to ensure a safeguard for Commonwealth citizens if we find ourselves, unhappily, in the Community.
In reply to the earlier intervention from below the gangway, I would say that whatever restrictions have been imposed by Governments in the United Kingdom, be they in the present or in the past, that in itself is no excuse for continuing or extending those restrictions elsewhere, or widening them.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend also add that, rightly or wrongly, we did that without any diktat from outside? In this case it will be an outside body, the European Community, which will dictate to us what we must do and we cannot in any way alter it.

Mr. Morris: That is why we seek to move this Amendment, to ensure that by prerogative legislation, that kind of diktat cannot be imposed against Commonwealth citizens. That would be provided for and the difficulty would not arise in respect to Commonwealth citizens in the British Parliament.
Whatever restrictions there are—and we shall come to them in a moment—it is no reason for putting those Commonwealth citizens who enter the United Kingdom in a worse position than those who wish to come from EEC countries to this country. That is probably the most serious objection. Most of us must be deeply concerned. That deals with intervention and puts the matter in a better perspective.
12.30 a.m.
The subsection seeks to ensure that all restrictions arising from the Treaty apply to the United Kingdom without further enactment. We move this Amendment to ensure that the words are added,
except any restrictions affecting the rights of entry of British Commonwealth citizens into the United Kingdom".
That seems to ensure that we cannot be dictated to, that the position is preserved, and that there cannot be legislation of the kind envisaged without further enactment.
At present Commonwealth citizens are bound by the terms of the Immigration Act. I do not wish to enter into detailed discussions about the emphasis on patrial relationships and many of the other matters about which we felt exceedingly unhappy when we considered that legislation. At the end of the day, there is a substantial restriction on the right of entry of Commonwealth citizens.
I find it very odd that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who from time to time beat the drum on the importance of our kith and kin find themselves in a position where, if this Bill passes into law, our kith and kin from white Australia and white Canada, let alone black Africa, will be in a much worse position than the onion seller from Brittany or the potential Italian fish and chip shop owner who wants to come here. That is the stark reality of the situation.
Many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have played an important part in stressing the importance of the British Empire and the British Commonwealth

of Nations, and I respect their views. But the reality of the situation, whether we are for or against entry, must be recognised. Those who wish to come here from the Commonwealth will be in a worse position than any other person from the EEC who wants to come here.

Mr. Peter Archer: I do not dissent from my right hon. Friend's conclusion, but will he answer one question in order to clarify my own mind? Does he agree that the discrimination against the citizens of whom he speaks arises in the first instance from the discrimination against them in United Kingdom legislation and that, to that extent, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) was right to suggest that if there were no such discrimination in our legislation there would be no basis for discrimination in the EEC?

Mr. Morris: My hon. and learned Friend is partially right, and to this extent: while the present Act remains in force the situation of the Commonwealth citizen will be worsened in comparison with that of the person who wants to come here from the EEC.
For the purposes of my argument, I take the Immigration Act, which governs the entry of Commonwealth citizens to this country. While that Act remains in existence, that is what governs the relationship of anyone who wants to come here from the Commonwealth, whatever his colour. The comparison that I stress is that restrictions would apply to him, whereas there would be no restrictions on anyone from the EEC wanting to come here.
In a small and restricted way, this Amendment seeks to ensure that if, unhappily, we find ourselves in the EEC, that kind of restriction cannot be imposed by prerogative legislation—at least, without deliberation by this House. I should have thought that all sides of the Committee would welcome that kind of safeguarding Amendment.
I want now to deal with one other matter, referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leith, concerning the free movement of labour. Article 48 states:
1. Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community by the end the transitional period at the latest.


2. Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.
That obviously must mean a free-for-all for anyone who wants to come to this country, subject to the detailed provisions which are laid down.
I should like to quote part of the decision of the Council of the European Economic Communities on 15th October, 1968, where it decided to apply Articles 48 and 49 of the treaty to the French Overseas Departments. I will not set out the full legal preamble. It refers to the provision in the second subparagraph of Article 227 whereby the Council is empowered to make provisions of the kind which they have sought to make. It goes on to say:
Whereas freedom of movement for workers is likely to promote the economic and social development of those departments, the Council has decided as follows. Articles 48 and 49 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and the measures taken in implementation of those Articles shall apply to the French Overseas Departments.
This is where we shall need, and I am sure will have, the assistance of the Solicitor-General. My understanding of the provisions is that those who want to come from the French Overseas Departments will be able to go to any part of the EEC. This follows as night follows day, because of the adoption by the Council of this provision and its extension to the French Overseas Departments. Therefore, anyone from the French Overseas Departments would be able to go not only to the EEC but to the extended EEC if we find ourselves within that unhappy Community. That means that they could come here unrestricted.

Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend speaking about a Department like Réunion now, as opposed to Senegal? Will he define what he is talking about?

Mr. Morris: I apologise to my hon. Friend, who follows these matters in detail, but I cannot. I am sure that somewhere in the 42 volumes which I have cursorily studied, but not in any great detail, I admit, there is a definition of the French Overseas Departments.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Is not the point at which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) is getting the fact that the French Overseas Departments are constitutionally an integral part of France, just as, although the parallel is not exact, Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom? Therefore, the territories in the Commonwealth which we have in mind in the Amendment are not comparable in any way with these particular territories.

Mr. Morris: Whatever the legalities and constitutional aspects may be, the point is that anyone from the French Overseas Departments will be able to go not only to France and Germany but to any part of the United Kingdom, whereas those who want to come here from the older countries of the Commonwealth, our ex-colonial territories, which are not unlike the French Overseas Departments, would not be able to do so. I am concerned about the element of preference. Whatever be the definition of the French Overseas Departments, on which I am sure the Solicitor-General will be able to assist us in due course, my impression is that part of the European Economic Community which was not expressly provided for by the terms of the treaty required a special provision. If it were not in that peculiar position, it would not have necessitated a particular decision by the Council. It was because there was an element of difference between the French overseas departments and the other parts of the EEC that the Council had to come to a decision on 15th October to apply this provision to the former. That underlines—I am sure to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend—the element of difference.
Whatever be the constitutional niceties of the position of the French overseas departments, they are of sufficient importance for the Council to come to a decision on this matter and to ensure, for the removal of doubt and ambiguity, that they are specifically provided for. That has been done. That is the reality of the situation.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Did the Council of Ministers decide to treat the overseas departments, which are constitutionally an integral part of France, differently from the overseas territories, or not?

Mr. Morris: I am sure that we can have clarification of that from the Solicitor-General. I am sure that he has studied the matter. The Amendment has been on the Notice Paper for some time, and no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman has been apprised of the arguments that would be put forward.
The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) mentioned Northern Ireland. There is an interesting footnote to this part of the conclusions, where it is stated that a transitional period of five years has been agreed in respect of this decision:
During this period the United Kingdom shall be free not to apply in full with regard to Northern Ireland the Community provisions relating to the free movement of labour.
For some reason, which is not manifest in this document, Northern Ireland is being treated differently.
That is the short point that I seek to make on the Amendment. We want to know why this important and safeguarding suggestion cannot be incorporated in the Bill in order to make sure that if the situation ever arrives no action can be taken by prerogative legislation—or, in the words of the Bill, "without any further enactment"—to deprive Commonwealth citizens the right of entry to the remainder of Europe.
Secondly, we want confirmation, or denial, of the conclusions that I have reached that, whereas, rightly or wrongly, the entry of Commonwealth citizens to this country is restricted by the Immigration Act, there will be full, free and unlimited entry of people from the EEC, and that, for reasons which are not apparent in the documents, citizens of the French overseas departments have been treated differently. As I understand it, they will be able to come to this country with the same ease, privileges and rights as any other member of the EEC.
Whatever the constitutional niceties of the French overseas departments compared with those on the mainland, there is great similarity between those departments and many parts of the Commonwealth. I find it odd that people from French overseas departments should be able to come to the United Kingdom or go to other parts of the EEC and be in a better position than people from

the Commonwealth who wish to come to this country.
Over the years I have heard right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite beating the drum on issues such as Rhodesia, the Empire and the Commonwealth. I find it difficult to see how they will be able to withstand this necessary and small Amendment which is designed to ensure that there is this important safeguard for the future so that this House will be able to retain a measure of independence in dealing with the situation to which I have referred, should it ever arise.

[Mr. BREWIS in the Chair]

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I am delighted that this Amendment has been selected because not only is the part of the Bill with which it is concerned charged with complexity, but it gives us an opportunity to discuss immigration and the movement of people in and out of the country as a result of our accession to the EEC, if we join.
I do not think we have in their places tonight any other members of the Select Committee which since the Labour Government, has been examining the whole question of immigration and race relations. It is obvious, in view of what has been said tonight, that it will be vital for this Select Committee to examine the ramifications of the Bill in terms of its effect on immigrants and aliens.
Hon. Members who took part in the Committee stage on the Immigration Act, 1971, will recall that time and again we questioned the effect of our accession to the Treaty of Rome on the free movement of people in and out of Britain. It was made clear that the Treaty would introduce an entirely new dimension to this movement of people.
I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley), who was Britain's first immigration Minister, should have made the sort of intervention he made, exposing the limitations of his case——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: And then went home.

Mr. Bidwell: I do not know where he has gone. I hope he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT of his comments and what we


have said about them. He in fact revealed the limitations of the current situation. It is not good enough for hon. Members who have a strong passion for the concept of accession to the Treaty of Rome to close their eyes to the new sphere of discrimination that we may be establishing, not so much concerning those coming to this country as those leaving it. They should recall the history and tradition of the Commonwealth, going back to the days of the Empire.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) is an enthusiastic European, but he appreciates the difficulties that arise for Commonwealth citizens. There were no restrictions on these people until the 1962 Act. That was followed, under Labour and Conservative Administrations, by further Measures, including the 1971 Act. A twin restriction was introduced at that time—alien workers were the target—and although the House of Lords gave the 1971 proposals a kick in the pants, they eventually became law.
The bulk of Commonwealth citizens who are resident and work in this country—those who have a statutory right to bring in their families; I refer to rights over and above those available to aliens—do not apply for British citizenship after the five-year qualifying period because in the case of, for example, Indians from the Punjab the adoption of British citizenship would be tantamount to turning their backs on certain property rights in India.
All these complications arise to be dealt with. It is not simply a matter of saying to an Indian national "Take British citizenship and you will be as free as a bird". The East African Asians in Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya are queuing to come to Britain. Their families have been split up. Unless we go further than we have at present we are heading for an enormously complicated situation in which this Parliament will denude itself of the right to determine its own policy on immigration. After accession this matter will be tossed into the Council of Ministers for a decision to be taken there.
We shall find that relationships between former colonial Empire states will vary considerably. We must introduce some regulation to give Commonwealth immigrants freedom of entry within the Common Market after five years' residence in

Britain. Under the Treaty of Rome, Italian workers, for example, are permitted to seek work in any of the other member States. The Treaty has developed that far and is now fully-fledged on the free movement of labour.
I well recall the evidence given by TUC representatives to the Select Committee looking into race relations and immigration. They said that it was wrong to impose on Commonwealth workers coming to Britain the kind of restrictions which were imposed on aliens under the central proposition contained in the Immigration Act, 1971. Commonwealth workers will be restricted under that legislation whether they come from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Pakistan, India the African States, or the West Indies. Under the Act they will have to serve a probationary period in this country. They must submit to police supervision, whether they register directly with the police or with the Department of Employment. The police will be legally obliged to check on these people for four years. The immigrants will not come under the terms of the free movement of labour in the Treaty of Rome, and this has created a discriminatory situation.
The Government dug out the word "partriality". That is a strange animal. If we had not had the curious alliance of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) in tabling an Amendment with regard to grandparents, we should have had an even more curious situation.
The Government led themselves into a contradictory situation in the terms of the declaration under the Treaty of Accession with regard to patriality. It led most people to believe that a right of abode here because of citizenship or patriality would mean freedom of movement within the E.E.C. area. We have written into our Measures that if we ever adhered to the Rome Treaty we should need new immigration laws to overcome the contradictions. We give the right of abode to the sons and daughters of people who were born here by virtue of their patriality, that archaic word that was dug out of the dictionary. It has never become clear who put it into the Act. It followed the thinking of those who believe we must discriminate between


black and white people. They thought the inclusion of "patriality" would prevent the protests of people in Australia, New Zealand and Canada—the white part of the Commonwealth. It was thought that at a stroke, by the concept of patriality, their fears could be overcome and a more severe restriction could be placed on the coloured part of the Commonwealth.
Now the Government have landed themselves in a mess. It is obvious that the discussions, so far as there have been any, are entirely inadequate to meet the new situation. Even the Amendment rather fights with what is intended in the Common Market concept. If absolute freedom of movement is given to all the citizens of the Commonwealth, which covers a quarter of the world's surface, and they are added to the 10 nations of Europe we shall be not on the edge of moving into a wider European set-up but on the edge of moving into a worldwide concept.
As someone who has had considerable experience in this field, I ask the Government to look at the question most carefully. It is charged with all sorts of contradictions. They should have produced a citizenship Measure, stating the terms under which one was supposed to be a citizen of Britain. They could have thought about applying to join the E.E.C. after that. But they are hoisted on the petard of their own muddle. The Act was a public relations exercise rather than a serious means, without colour and racial discrimination, of getting down to the task of taking people in according to work opportunities and showing the world that Britain was a community entirely free from racial discrimination.
If the Government will not accept the terms of the Amendment, I hope they will shake themselves up on the whole question, because the situation will be enormously contradictory and will lead to all sorts of difficulties.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: This discussion has been highly charged and emotional but not rational. It has been irrational largely because allegations of discrimination have been wildly levelled when clearly the Bill applies to Commonwealth citizens of all races. To say that

it is discriminatory in the sense that it applies to our own kith and kin as much as it does to people of Indian or African origin is patently ludicrous. It is fallacious also to suggest that we are being dictated to by the Commission, by the EEC or by anyone else in Europe. We voluntarily applied for membership of the Community and we knew full well the regulations and rules which would apply to us.
Most of the Opposition's arguments have been directed against the Immigration Act, 1971. That is the Opposition's main bone of contention.

Mr. John Morris: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. Some of us desisted from going into arguments about the 1971 Act but merely compared the fact that there are restrictions on Commonwealth citizens coming to this country and the fact that there would be no comparable restrictions on people coming from the EEC or the French overseas departments to the United Kingdom. Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that this is discrimination. This is the burden of our argument.

Mr. Wilkinson: I understand all the right hon. Gentleman's points. The criticisms of the Immigration Act to which I referred were largely made by the hon. Member for South all (Mr. Bidwell), who waxed eloquent about the question of patriality and other aspects of the Act. I come from an area with as many immigrants as that represented by the hon. Member for South all. No immigrant from the Commonwealth has come to me to express hostile views about our entry to the EEC. Such immigrants have known full well about it. They believe that we are fully entitled to make application to join, and they have not seen any disadvantages in our application. That is a most important matter totally ignored by the Opposition.
There are those who say that there is discrimination in that people in the EEC would be free to come and work here whereas people in the Commonwealth would not. In the sense that we are seeking by our application to join to enlarge the Community we are expanding our own area of sovereignty. The EEC as a relationship is different from the Commonwealth. In the Commonwealth there is no reciprocal right of free entry with free permits to work. The East


African countries are deporting Commonwealth citizens from their shores. So it cannot be alleged that the same rights apply in the Commonwealth as apply in the EEC. The EEC is a freer and more liberal form of association. To allege that we are being discriminatory is totally fallacious.

Mr. George Cunningham: I am having difficulty in following the argument. It seems to be implicit in what the hon. Gentleman has said that one of the Six does not have the right to deport citizens of another member of the Six. He referred to East African countries deporting Commonwealth citizens, by which he presumably means deporting citizens of a Commonwealth country other than the country which is doing the deporting. That is exactly paralleled in the Community: one member State can deport the citizens of another member State. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not understand the concept of Commonwealth citizenship. It is rather difficult to follow.

Mr. Wilkinson: Commonwealth citizens who have a different ethnic background from the majority of Commonwealth citizens in East African countries and who have lived all their lives in those countries are being deported from there quite apart from any question of a further influx of Commonwealth citizens from other Commonwealth countries being allowed into those East African countries to work. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands my point.
There are 30,000 to 40,000 Commonwealth immigrants in my city. No immigrant in my city has been to see me to complain about the Immigration Act, 1971. Their concern is that they should be able to earn as good a living as possible in Britain and that they should have the maximum economic opportunities.
The right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) is usually logical and lucid, but he went off the rails tonight when he referred to the French overseas départements. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the département is in a sense a province of France, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) has said that Northern Ireland is a province of the United Kingdom: that was a perfectly fair parallel. The

Commonwealth is in no sense analogous, because the Commonwealth, as the hon. Member for Southall said, covers a vast area of the surface of the globe and encompasses one-quarter of the world's population, whereas the few overseas départements, which are different from the independent francophile territories, constitute a very small proportion of the world's population. As for the footnote to which he referred in reference to Northern Ireland, this is understandable in the context of the present troubles there and the significance which the border between the south and the north has at present.
The importance for Commonwealth citizens is that the discrimination on outgoing Commonwealth residents in the United Kingdom should be the minimum possible. In other words, people of Commonwealth origin resident in the United Kingdom should have the maximum opportunity for economic advancement and of earning a livelihood within the context of the European Economic Community as a whole. On this point I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will be able to advise me.

Mr. Peter Archer: I do not dissent from the last paragraph of the speech just made by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson). And I say at once that, if my right hon. and hon. Friends propose to divide the Committee on the Amendment, I shall support them in the Division Lobby.
I intervene briefly to give an explanation of vote, which may differ a little from the reasons given by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, although I am sure that, with the usual tolerance which we on this side accord to one another, they will appreciate that our reasoning is sometimes different on these matters. I do so, in particular, because it would be a pity if a false impression were to gain currency among the immigrant community. Accession to the Community does not affect the right of a Commonwealth citizen, or of a non-indigenous citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, to come to this country. In that respect he is no worse off. And there is no immediate likelihood of anything happening within the European Economic Community which is likely to make them worse off in that respect.

Mr. Spearing: If I manage to catch the eye of the Chair later, I hope to enlarge on that. Would not the hon. and learned Member agree that there are disadvantages in terms of statute and law, that there are also disadvantages in terms of economic competition, and that one must bear both in mind?

Mr. Archer: If my hon. Friend is saying that fewer non-patrials may be admitted from the Commonwealth because more will be admitted from Europe, he is perfectly right. That may be one of the consequences. I do not wish to go over old ground with my hon. Friends, but some of us would hope that, in the near future, that would be more than offset by the expansion of industry consequent upon our acceding.
I fully understand that some of my hon. Friends do not agree with that. I was provoked into saying it. I do not think it is strictly relevant to this Amendment, and I do not propose to pursue it at this stage.
It is incontrovertible that nothing has emerged so far by way of regulation or treaty within the Community which adversely affects the right of Commonwealth citizens to enter this country. I was not saying anything more controversial than that.

Mr. Clinton Davis: While that may well be conceded, is it not right that once a Commonwealth citizen is here he is placed in a totally disadvantageous position under the terms of the Immigration Act and of the Aliens Order 1953 compared with somebody entering from the EEC?

Mr. Archer: I agree with my hon. Friend. That was the point I was going to make. Not for the first time, my hon. Friend and I have been saying the same thing and racing each other in order to say it.

Mr. John Morris: While the hon. and learned Member for careful to say there was no restriction at present manifest as regards the entry of Commonwealth citizens into this country, would not that possibility come into existence if we entered into the EEC, if this Clause were not amended as we seek to amend it, in that the EEC could, without further

enactment by the House of Commons, impose that very restriction?

Mr. Archer: I agree with what my right hon. Friend said. I was about to make that point. My hon. and right hon. Friends are making my speech for me admirably.
I was one of those on this side of the House who sat for many months—I almost said many weary months—resisting the Immigration Bill. Again and again during the course of considering that Bill we asked the Government what would be the effect upon that Bill of accession to the EEC.
I shall not weary the Committee with long quotations or references. But we were told originally in Committee in June, 1971, that this was a hypothetical question, that we might never accede to the EEC, so why consider it at that stage? One would have thought that it was a little more immediate than that and merited a little attention from the Government.
By the time of the Report Stage and Third Reading in October, 1971, we were told by the Home Secretary that he was confident that the Bill would not require any amendment. Apart from the self-activating amendments which follow from what we are discussing tonight, that may very well be right.
But the effect upon that Bill of acceding to the Community is to exempt from its provisions about 300 million people, who are the most likely to want to come to this country. If that is not altering the whole scheme of the Bill, it is difficult to know what is. If it had then been possible to have had from the Government at that time some of their ideas as to the effect on the Bill of accession then we might have appreciated the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central, made.
Of course it is true that when someone from the Commonwealth comes here and discovers that he is subject to a number of restrictions which do not apply to nationals of Community countries, he will feel a little resentful. He will have been subject to the work permit procedure, to restrictions as to the dependants he can bring and, if he has the misfortune to fall mentally ill, to the possibility of being deported. He will be subject to all the control after entry which exists in the


rules. Obviously he will feel a little resentful in that situation.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is that necessarily so, because, surely, in a sense, the Community will become our country. I give an analogy. The Indian Union is the country of the people of India. A Sikh, for example, can go to Bengal or a Bengali can go to Gujerat, or someone from the deep south can go to the north. They are different people and speak totally different languages. To someone from outside the Community, meeting these restrictions in the United Kingdom is not so anomalous because, coming from outside the Community, he will regard the Community as in a sense becoming largely one country.

Mr. Archer: I am not quite sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman's point although I have tried hard. If he is saying that he envisages a period in future when the Community will appear to those within it and those who visit it as very much partaking of one country, in the way the United States does to the nationals of that federation. I would go along with him to a great extent, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about non-patrials from the Commonwealth coming here and being told that they cannot have certain dependants with them—that they cannot bring their grandmother although an Italian worker can bring his. These are practical, everyday problems which will be borne upon them. I can understand that people in that situation will feel resentful.
The point I want to make—and I hope, again, that my hon. Friends will forgive my making it—is that this discrimination arises not from within the Community or the Treaties but from legislation of the United Kingdom, which some of us here fought tooth and nail to resist. Many of us would like to see it rescinded, but that is the source of the discrimination about which we are talking. However, this is not the problem we are considering in this Amendment. We are not considering the right of European workers to come to this country. The problem envisaged in the Amendment is the right of Commonwealth citizens in this country to go to Europe and work there if they so wish.
Again arising from our legislation, at the moment they are under a difficulty. I can well imagine a practical situation in which they feel this discrimination keenly. I can see two men, perhaps workmates on the same shop floor, standing side by side in a public house. One says to the other, "Perhaps I can do better by going to Germany." The other says, "At least you have a choice; I have not." This is the kind of thing which will be felt very keenly. But this also is a discrimination which arises from our legislation and not from any distinctions which have been made in the Community.

Mr. Wilkinson: This is again a serious point. I said "people of Commonwealth origin." I did not necessarily say Commonwealth citizens resident in this country. The point is that Commonwealth citizens residing in this country retain the right if they wish to return to India or certain other perquisites. What we will face in future, perhaps, is whether they should acquire British citizenship to move freely around the EEC or whether they would rather retain Indian citizenship to be able to go back to India.

Mr. Archer: If they have been here for four and a half years they do not get the option. At the end of the period it is still possible under the Bill that they may never have the option because they may have been deported. The problem envisaged by the Amendment arises because the Government have not faced up to precisely the challenge which my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) posed.
Faced as we are with a past which inevitably has linked us to many parts of the world, we now find ourselves with a complicated system of nationality. Human beings fall into such categories as aliens, Commonwealth citizens, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are not patrial, and those who are. The introduction of patriality is the source of the problem. But we are still confronted with the situation as it exists, and it is for this reason that I appreciate the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon.
While this situation exists there is the basic for a possible future discrimination. I and some of my hon. Friends believe that we should accede to the EEC because we do not see it as an inward-looking community. Some of my hon.


Friends disagree. But we believe it is likely to become more outward-looking rather than less, and we are prepared to run ourselves into the ground to ensure that it does.
But there is still the theoretical, it may be the practical, possibility that it will not be outward-looking, that we may fail. If that situation arises I would like the House of Commons to be in a position still to protect the people whom we have all worked so hard to protect. For that reason I propose to support the Amendment. It may be that the question will never arise. If there never is a situation to which it can apply then the Government cannot object to the Amendment, because no one will be one whit worse off. But if there should one day be a situation in which it can apply, then it is necessary.

Mr. Spearing: I wish to remind the Committee that this Amendment is set against wider concepts. We hear much about the free movement of labour, skills and professions. I read something about lawyers moving from one part of Europe to another. However, their movement is in terms of short, day visits, with all expenses paid, with a very tight professional network and is quite a different thing from the sort of movement of labour envisaged inside the Community, indeed practised now. We must not forget that inside the EEC there are large numbers of people going to work who are not members of the EEC, who go there on a restricted basis, known euphemistically as "guest workers." The latest figures showed the percentage to be colossal in comparison with our own relatively modest intake of people from the Commonwealth countries. The figures are over half a million or more. We have to take this situation into account in considering the Amendment which tries to protect people who have looked to Britain over the centuries and with whom the cultural and emotional ties are close.
Not long ago I was asked about race relations in the London Borough of Ealing. I explained that immigrants from India were used to the British way of life because the foundations of their law and administration under the Raj were not dissimilar to our own.

Mr. Bidwell: Is my hon. Friend aware that in India traffic is driven on the left-hand side of the road?

Mr. Spearing: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that information.
Not long ago a Commonwealth citizen, a constituent of mine who has been established here for a long time—a property-owning democrat with his own business, a minor capitalist—wrote to me saying that he wished his brother to come to this country and to go into business partnership with him, but his brother was not allowed to come because of the current immigration laws. I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who was at that time dealing with the matter in the Home Office, who replied in the following terms:
When the main provisions of the Immigration Act, 1971, come into force later this year the employment voucher scheme will be replaced by a system of work permits. Under this a person who wishes to come to the United Kingdom and take work must first obtain a work permit for a particular job in a particular place. A permit will however only be issued where no resident labour is available to fill the job. Your constituent will be free to apply in due course to the Department of Employment for a work permit for his brother, but it would be wrong to lead him to believe that a permit is likely to be issued.
I can confirm that you have correctly described the position of nationals of EEC countries with effect from 1st January 1973. Such persons will be given leave to enter the United Kingdom to take or seek employment freely. This does not affect the position of Commonwealth citizens whose entry to this country is subject to control.
So my constituent will not be able to get his brother into the family business and to live in the family home if the job can be filled by someone from France, Germany or Italy. Moreover, people from the EEC countries can come over here and seek employment. I am not arguing the merits of that. I agree with the concept of the free movement of labour but it has some rather unfortunate overtones because of people moving at the behest of large industrial corporations, possibly firms which specialise in the recruitment of labour for particular purposes.
I am not arguing against our own immigration controls, they are necessary, but I cannot envisage a system whereby my constituent's brother would stand an equal chance with workers from the EEC


countries. Even the existing situation will be put in peril unless the Government accept the Amendment.
I have given this example because for the last six or seven hours we have been talking in abstract terms on matters which certain hon. Members handle as to the manner born. Here I am talking about the lives of ordinary people, their families, loyalties and motivations. Unless the Government accept this Amendment or undertake to introduce something like it on Report, I believe that these conditions will multiply and cross-fertilise and that the sort of difficulties which we have been trying to deal with in the Select Committee on Immigration and in the Race Relations Commission will be trebly complicated after entry into the EEC.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Orme: This is an interesting and important debate. It is interesting because many hon. Members who have shown great concern about Commonwealth immigrants and the inflow to this country have not shown any concern about the free movement of labour which will follow our entry into the EEC and about what many of us fear will be open discrimination against Commonwealth immigrants.
The Amendment seeks to deal with the entry of Commonwealth immigrants into this country. At the moment there is no regulation of the EEC to prevent this, but under Clause 2(1) it will be possible for an order to be made without approval of the British Parliament. It is important to remember that in talking about Commonwealth immigrants and free movement within the EEC we are in the main talking about coloured Commonwealth immigrants. We know there is a great deal of concern in member countries of the EEC about the possibility of such free movement. We also know that discussion have taken place and that no report has been made to the House about those negotiations.
I ask the Solicitor-General, who is said to be a liberal in matters of race and equality, whether he is prepared to accept this Amendment which does not seek to undermine the treaty but seeks only to spell out to the EEC our concern about this issue.
We see set out on page 118 of the Decision of the Council, Part I, what the

United Kingdom considers to be a national. However, that is only a decision of the United Kingdom, since it has not been accepted by the EEC. We have made that declaration as we have made declarations on other issues. I recall the Commonwealth sugar agreements, but we did not get a similar declaration from the other countries that this would be accepted by them. Many of us know that the West Germans, and particularly the Christian Democratic Union, which is not the ruling party but could easily become so—are concerned about the inflow of immigrants into West Germany—not just from the EEC, but from Turkey and Greece. Moves are likely to be made to restrict that flow of immigrants.
One can easily see the barriers being put up if Commonwealth immigrants wanted to move into the EEC. The argument might easily be used that language could be a great barrier in this regard and that it would not be easy for such immigrants to move, but many British workers are in West German shipyards and so forth and it is possible for any British citizen to move into the EEC if so allowed. One can see the reason here: an element of discrimination still exists because of the 1971 Act against Commonwealth immigrants in this country extending to Commonwealth immigrants who move from this country into the EEC. The Solicitor-General owes us a full explanation on this matter.
I was interested in the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley), who nearly two hours ago drew the attention of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) to the fact that a Labour Government introduced discrimination, with regard to East African Asians.
We are fully aware of that, as I said then, but my hon. Friend was a member of the Government which introduced that. Some of us voted against that proposal. When the Labour Government, for whatever reasons, introduced that, whatever the emergency or the electoral reasons, many of us thought that we were breaching an important principle by excluding British citizens from the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich pointed this out to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leith as if it were a great sin, and as if my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leith


were trying to perpetuate it in what he was saying. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, who is such a strong pro-Marketeer, supported that legislation, and I only regret—because I know his attitude on racial issues, which is first class—that he has not stayed to vote for this Amendment to put on record that we are concerned about this issue. Not many months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) and I took part in questions to Ministers about this problem of the free movement of labour and allowing all Commonwealth immigrants to move into the EEC. We got no express understanding from the Government then. We are entitled to an explanation on this.
I am not one who will complain about the free movement of labour. I have had it raised with me as an anti-marketeer: "Are you not afraid of the French, Germans or Italians coming in?" I do not rate this as a major issue. I am in favour of free movement of people but not of having this Government justifying that and then not leaving the same rights and equality to Commonwealth British citizens.
There is a great responsibility on the Solicitor-General and the Government. We are not satisfied and want an explanation why this cannot be accepted by the Government, and if it is not accepted, I hope that the Committee will insist on it.

The Solicitor-General: It may be convenient if I intervene at this point and try to answer some of the questions which have been raised. I do so with a due sense of diffidence arising from the fact that I did not have the privilege of being a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Immigration Bill last year, so that my knowledge of that aspect of this subject is necessarily less extensive than that of many other right hon. and hon. Members. However, I appeared from time to time, and I hope that I was of some assistance. I seem to remember dealing with the Treaty of Waitangi at one point, though, with the passage of time, I seem to have forgotten what I learnt about it.
Amendment No. 213 is very narrow in its scope. It seeks to deal only with

restrictions affecting the rights of entry of British Commonwealth citizens into the United Kingdom and does not deal with the rights of movement of such people, once in the United Kingdom, to other parts of the EEC. Nor does it deal with Northern Ireland, although the Committee will remember that for Northern Ireland a five-year transitional period has been negotiated and that during that period the Northern Ireland Safeguarding of Employment Act, 1947, will continue to operate as it does now to ensure that available work there should be reserved in the first instance for residents of Northern Ireland. The situation is safeguarded not only during the transitional period, because Her Majesty's Government have made it clear that if we judge it necessary we shall wish to negotiate a further derogation within the enlarged Community at the end of the five-year transitional period if circumstances warrant it.
I focus my comments on the narrow point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) and by the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) that the real complaint here is directed to the present condition of our own immigration law and that the same kind of complaint with more or less force is directed by those who complain both of the immigration law as it emerged from the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1968, and of the Immigration Act, 1971.
In the context of our present proceedings, the existing rights of entry of Commonwealth citizens are not affected by the proposed entry of the United Kingdom into the Communities. Nor is there any provision in the treaties or any existing secondary legislation restricting those rights of entry. Her Majesty's Government will continue to be free to control the number of people entering this country from the Commonwealth and to fix the conditions on which they are admitted.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Was it not the stated purpose of the Immigration Act to bring Commonwealth citizens into line with aliens? How does the Solicitor-General square that purpose, which was stated over and over again on Second Reading and in Committee, with what he is saying now?

The Solicitor-General: I am not considering the purpose of the Immigration Act. I am saying that various hon. Members on both sides can criticise from both points of view the state of our immigration law between 1968 and 1971 and post-1971, but that that is unaffected by what we are considering now.
As the Leader of the Opposition said in 1967:
The Treaty of Rome in itself will have no direct effect on what we ourselves do about Commonwealth immigrants. They can continue to come to this country under the provisions of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act and we shall be free to limit or not to limit the numbers who come."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1085–6.]
That is the same position, albeit in a different legislative context, and it is still the case that it is not within the scope of the law-making powers conferred on the Community to impose restrictions on the rights of entry of Commonwealth citizens into the United Kingdom. The powers of the Community institutions are limited to the general purposes laid down in the treaties, and there is nothing in any of the relevant provisions which could authorise the making of Community law imposing those restrictions.
A different question which arises outside the scope of this Amendment is that of the extent of the right of Commonwealth citizens when they come to this country to freedom of movement within the E.E.C. It is that with which the declaration, on page 118 of the first volume of the Treaty of Accession, deals. It defines what is meant by United Kingdom nationals in that context.
1.45 a.m.
That point has been explained by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, and perhaps most succinctly by my noble Friend Lord Windlesham in another place on 15th December, 1971, when he said:
I can best summarise the position by saying that the definition includes all citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are patrial under the Immigration Act, 1971, and thus exempt from immigration control; but that it does not extend to citizens of independent Commonwealth countries, even if they are patrial."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 15th December, 1971; Vol. 326, c. 1121.]
It means that once a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies has estab-

lished his status of patriality in accordance with our law—for example, Kenya-Asians acquiring that right after five years in this country—he becomes a national within the terms of the declaration and is entitled to freedom of movement within the European Economic Community. It does not extend—I think the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) raised this point and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West, referred to it—to the citizen of an independent Commonwealth Country, such as India or Pakistan, who wishes to retain his foot in that country and does not qualify for patriality. However, within the European context, once a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies has acquired his right of patriality, the right of freedom of movement follows.
The right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) raised the question of the French dependencies. There are four French overseas departments—Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana and Réunion—which are parts of metropolitan France and, as such, are represented in the French Assembly rather, as one hon. Member put it, as the province of Ulster is represented here.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Mr. Biggs-Davison rose——

The Solicitor-General: Perhaps I may finish the exposition before giving way to my hon. Friend. The position of those four departments is separate from either the present or the former French dependent territories, or from the independent Commonwealth countries. It is more akin to the position of Ulster and, on this point at least, to that of Gibraltar.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: This is a niggling point. For the sake of complete record, are St. Pierre et Miquelon included, or is that Réunion?

The Solicitor-General: I should say that they are not, because I have not seen any list which includes them. It is merely the four departments to which I have referred which are parts of metropolitan France, which qualify in the same way as Ulster and, on the freedom of movement, in the same way as Gibraltar.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I wish to intervene concerning Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana and Réunion. Will the Government be in a position to restrict the entry


of French nationals from those territories which are integral parts of metropolitan France? If we are unable to restrict entry from those territories, why should we restrict entry from Trinidad, Mauritius, Australia and New Zealand?

The Solicitor-General: It depends who is or who is not to be regarded as a national of each of the member States. I have explained that those four particular departments are parts of metropolitan France in the same way as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who qualify along the lines I have indicated become citizens or nationals of the United Kingdom.
The joint declaration on page 117 of the first volume of the Treaty of Accession, which gives to each member State the right, should difficulties arise, to bring the matter before the institutions of the Community—that is, difficulties arising in the circumstances covered by that declaration from the free movement of workers provisions—no doubt could be invoked in the context suggested by the hon. Gentleman, just as it could be invoked by other member States in the same kind of situation.

Mr. Powell: I hope that the Solicitor-General will forgive me. I am not harking back, but it was a rather important point and he passed over it, though precisely, fairly rapidly.
I understood my hon. and learned Friend to say that for the purposes of movement inside the Community the rights of freedom of movement would not apply to British subjects who were not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies—that is to say, British subjects who were citizens of independent Commonwealth countries—even though they were patrial within the terms of the 1971 Act.

The Solicitor-General: The Solicitor-General indicated assent.

Mr. Powell: My hon. and learned Friend denotes his assent. May I put this to him? I think that this may be misleading and the cause of confusion, because it is possible, for example, for an Australian citizen to be an Australian citizen and also a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. He is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, for example, unconditionally if at the moment

his father, and after the entry into force of the 1971 Act his father or mother, were born in this country. As I understand it, although an Australian citizen, he would, in those circumstances, be entitled to freedom of movement within the Community.
I apologise to my hon. and learned Friend for the complexity of the point, but as these proceedings may be read rather carefully by people who might be affected I hope that he will not mind my intervention.

The Solicitor-General: I hesitate to give an authoritative answer on that complicated point, but I think that I meet my right hon. Friend's point by quoting from what my noble Friend Lord Windlesham said in another place.
The citizen of an independent Commonwealth country will not be eligible"—
that is, for freedom of movement—
unless and until he applies for citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by registraton after a period of five years. There may be some cases where there is dual nationality, and if a Commonwealth citizen also holds citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colones, then he would be eligible from the start."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 15th December, 1971; Vol. 326, cc. 1122–3.]
That is subject to the qualification that I made earlier in respect of some independent Commonwealth countries which do not permit dual nationality, such as India and Pakistan. That gloss by me on what my noble Friend said should be treated with reserve in the circumstances of my knowledge of this subject.

Mr. John Morris: If these French territories which have been named are to be regarded as any other part of the United Kingdom, as it were, having regard to their relationship with other parts of metropolitan France, why was it necessary to have a special resolution of the Council of the European Communities for the implementation of the articles in question to apply to those territories?
Secondly, will the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm the impression that I have, that whereas a citizen of Réunion can come to this country without any restrictions, somebody from Mauritius would be restricted in accordance with the terms of the Immigration Act?

The Solicitor-General: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's impression is correct, because of the status of these


four French departments as parts of metropolitan France, which distinguish them from the former French dependent territories and from independent Commonwealth countries. As to why that particular provision was necessary, I cannot at this stage hazard an answer. Perhaps special considerations applied at the time. It would not be wise of me to attempt to answer the right hon. Gentleman beyond that, though I will try to discover the reason and communicate it to him.
Anxiety has been expressed lest a change should take place in the whole scale of our immigration pattern which would make it necessary to adopt a certain posture towards immigration. The Committee may feel reassured by the fact that the view that membership of the EEC will not greatly affect our pattern of immigration was accepted by the TUC in its Report "Britain and the EEC" which it presented to Congress in 1970. Paragraph 54 of that document stated:
It would appear unlikely that the Community's provisions would pose major problems; in particular it does not appear that the abolition of restrictions would alter significantly the number of workers moving either to or from Britain.
That view of the TUC was confirmed in paragraph 92 of the report presented to the 1971 Congress.
The Amendment seems to raise the objection that Commonwealth citizens will be subject to more severe restrictions on entry than EEC nationals. If that were to be the position, the Amendment would do nothing to stop it. If it should be the position, it would arise not because of any consequences of this legislation but because of the nature of our existing pattern of immigration control, including the latest Measures and those which went before the 1968 Act. In these circumstances I invite the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. George Cunningham: I regret that I was not able to speak before the Solicitor-General because, although he touched on some of the points that particularly concern me, he did not answer some of the specific questions I wish to put to him.
I understood from the reply to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that the Solicitor-General takes the view that a

person who possessed United Kingdom citizenship would be a national for this purpose of free movement, whether he acquired United Kingdom citizenship by registration, having been formally a citizen of some other country, or by birth. If he possessed it by birth, then I gather that he could possess it by having been born in this country or in a colony.
As I understand the definition of "national" as promulgated for this purpose by the British Government, it does cover not all United Kingdom citizens but only those to whom I have referred and British subjects without citizenship who have the right of abode in the United Kingdom. I gather that there will be United Kingdom citizens—I refer to those citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies whose status derives from their association with a colony—who will not be defined as "nationals" for this purpose.

The Solicitor-General: The Solicitor-General indicated assent.

Mr. Cunningham: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman assenting to the point I am making?

The Solicitor-General: Yes.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Cunningham: I am grateful for that confirmation.
I do not go along with many of the objections that have been raised by my hon. Friends in this context. I think it neither proper nor realistic to expect that the Community would be prepared to give free movement to all British subjects or Commonwealth citizens. The number of British subjects or Commonwealth citizens in the world is about 800 millions, and it is unrealistic to expect that the Communities would be prepared to give free movement of labour to such a number. But a very different situation arises in respect of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. As I see it we have three different propositions in respect of three different members, or potential members, of the Community on the definition of "national" for this purpose.

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

First, there is the British definition which I have already mentioned and which excludes some persons who possess precisely the same national status as


everyone in this Chamber. The second is the German definition which is attached to the Treaty of Rome. It is, of course, rather special in Germany's situation but it needs to be referred to. It says:
All Germans as defined in the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany shall be considered nationals of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Therefore, a very large number of persons who are not in the normal sense of the words citizens of West Germany are regarded as nationals of Germany with the rights of free movement for this purpose.

The third definition is that applying in the French situation. Whether it is done by definition by the French Government or by the Council, obviously the initiative would belong with France, and that includes, besides citizens of France by right of their association with metropolitan France, those citizens of France who are such by right of their association with the four overseas French departments, but not, as I understand it, the overseas French territories, and certainly not the independent countries which were formerly regarded as part of the French community, the overseas associated States of the Community. The French arrangement is obviously more vital to their dependent territories than ours.

We are proposing that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, by virtue have the right of free movement because of their association with Gibraltar, will have the right of free movement because they are obviously Europeans. But we have not even asked for similar rights for those citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who belong to other dependent territories. I do not think we should seek these rights for citizens of India, Pakistan, the independent West Indies and all the other countries which are now independent. Once these citizens become citizens of this country, then and only then is it proper that they should enjoy freedom of movement within the Community.

But I cannot understand why a citizen of France who belongs to a dependent territory to France, an overseas department, should enjoy this right when citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies belonging to a continuing free dependency would not. This is not just

a matter of constitutional rectitude. We cannot ignore the point about numbers. As I have tried to calculate, the number of persons covered by the four overseas French departments is approximately 1,100,000. If we are wrong, and the territories are covered, that would raise the number to about 1·7 million.

The population in those countries which continue to be British dependent territories is 4·7 million, but 4 million of that total are represented by the population of Hong Kong. People might say that special conditions should attach to Hong Kong because of its special relationship with China. If we excluded Hong Kong, the number of people in the other British dependent territories would be considerably less than 1 million.

If any one of those countries was likely to advance to independence, so that residents would acquire the citizenship of an independent country, I can see that there would be little point on a temporary basis in ensuring that such people had the right of free movement to this country and within the Community. But many of these continuing dependent territories will not become independent. The most that is likely to happen is that they will become associated States, like some of the non-independent West Indian territories, and have a continuing relationship with this country.

France has done the sensible thing. It has said that the people of a territory which continues to be a dependent territory of France or part of metropolitan France should be treated just like any other Frenchmen. We should do the same in respect of those citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who live in the colonies. As I understand it, the Government have not only not achieved that objective but have not even asked for it. We are entitled to an explanation.

The Amendment reflects the fear that the Community might use its right to conclude treaties which would over-ride the rights of Parliament in a way with which Parliament might not agree. It cannot be denied that if the Community were minded to harmonise immigration policy it is highly unlikely to take account of the anxieties which derive from the historic connections, this country has enjoyed. We are therefore entitled to suspect that if there is a move towards harmonisation it will be one


which is inimical to Commonwealth citizens from all countries, and even hostile to the interests of those who come from British dependent territories.

The lesson surely is that the mad rush to harmonise everything in sight that might conceivably affect the economy of member countries is misconceived. We could gain most, if not all, of the economic benefits of membership of the Community, if there are any, without all the hamonisation of very peripheral, matters. It is upon that ground that I shall support the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: I think that the reason why a Council decision was necessary in connection with the free movement of labour from the overseas French departments is to be found in Article 227 of the Treaty of Rome. Paragraph 1 provided that the treaty should apply to the French Republic, and paragraph 2 provided with regard to French overseas departments that certain provisions of the treaty, not including free movement of labour, were to apply straight away. It goes on to provide that the conditions under which other provisions of the treaty, including free movement of labour, were to apply to those French overseas departments were to be determined by decision of the Council, and hence the decision of the Council to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is that which subsequently applied the free movement of labour provision to the French departments.

Mr. John Morris: I am grateful for the Solicitor-General's clarification of the issue, which is set out in part in the document setting out the decision of the Council where reference to Article 227 (2) is made. My point was made on the basis of the argument which the Solicitor-General was advancing that the French departments were comparable, as regards their relationship with the remainder of France, with any part of the United Kingdom in its relationship with another. Does not the fact that there was a need for a specific reference in Article 227(2) and for a special resolution of the Council erode completely the argument of the Solicitor-General that the relationship of these departments to the remainder of France was akin to that of any part of the United Kingdom to another?

The Solicitor-General: It does not erode completely, or indeed at all, the

general point that I was going on to make in answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham), because it would seem to me that a factual reason why the position of citizens of the French overseas departments, as opposed to other dependent or independent territories, is differently treated from the citizens of our dependent colonial territories springs from the fact that the French overseas departments, although treated differently under the Article 227 procedure, are departments of metropolitan France which have within metropolitan France freedom of movement and which had it even before the special Council decision under Article 227,whereas, rightly or wrongly, we have an immigration control law which separates the citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are not attached by geography to the United Kingdom. In other words, there is a greater degree of separation between our dependent territory inhabitants and the United Kingdom than there is or was between the inhabitants of the metropolitan departments of France and France itself.
That is the practical reason for the distinction. Our definition of United Kingdom nationals in the Declaration is in line with our immigration law on citizenship and geographical attachment. Once the second hurdle has been overcome, our dependent territory citizens require the same degree of attachment to the United Kingdom and freedom of mobility in our own orbit as the citizens of the metropolitan departments of France. There is that parallel which, to some extent, explains the point raised by the hon. Member for Islington, South-West.

Mr. Clinton Davis: People living in constituencies such as mine and coming from Commonwealth countries who have established themselves here but still have relationships in those Commonwealth countries, who have children here, and constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) and Acton (Mr. Spearing) will be very concerned about this provision and will require much more clarification than the Solicitor-General has given tonight about the scope of the Bill and some of the anomalies which arise from our immigration laws.
Unless that clarification is forthcoming, and unless the Government are prepared


to be more flexible, the resentment about which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) spoke will become a very serious problem in areas such as ours.
It is resentment which is already expressed. Every week at my surgery I am told by at least one person, and sometimes by more, that he cannot freely bring his family into Britain. A distinction is to be drawn between those people and people coming from EEC countries who will be able to bring their families in freely: they will not be subject to the same regulations.
2.15 a.m.
The Solicitor-General, in justification of all this, says that it is true that there is to be this distinction between Commonwealth citizens and EEC workers entering Britain, but it is just too bad, because this is the pattern that our immigration laws have taken and, therefore, we must put up with it. That is neither a sensible argument nor a justification for the Government's attitude. It is particularly anomalous when one remembers that the purpose of the Immigration Act, 1971, as stated repeatedly by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples), who was the then Minister of State, was to bring Commonwealth citizens into line with aliens. The Act does not do that. That purpose is frustrated by what we are considering now. It was a disputable proposition at the time, as many of us said. Indeed, on Second Reading of that Bill the hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt) expressed the gravest reservations about it, in perhaps stronger terms than did many other people. We know now that that proposition is, in the light of this Bill, totally absurd.
In Committee on the Immigration Bill we asked repeatedly what had been discussed on these very important and detailed problems of, for example, registration. We wanted to know what negotiations had taken place with the Six and what the results had been. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton said, we were consistently told that all these problems were hypothetical. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said this, for example:
We may join the EEC and changes may take place within the Commonwealth, but those circumstances are hypothetical. Should they

change, that will be the correct time for Parliament to debate those changes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B; 4th May, 1971, c. 523.]
If the Government had had their way, we should not be debating those changes; the Government would have been totally silent on this essential matter.
We were told that the Immigration Bill had to be hurried through, that it must complete its Committee stage by Whitsun, 1971, and that it had to be enacted by October, 1971. The Act is still not in operation, and I do not think a commencing date has yet been fixed for it. That is an interesting reflection on the way the Government behaved on that issue. It will be interesting to hear how the Solicitor-General equates that situation with these proposals.
It was right that we should examine the mobility of labour provisions of the Rome Treaty in depth in relation to our own immigration law, because we have been able to expose the tremendous contradictions that exist. We are entitled to know what amendments will now be required to the 1971 Act and to the Aliens Order, 1953.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) suggested that there was no discrimination in these provisions and that nothing was wrong. He ought to look at some of the consequences of what is likely to happen here. We know that patriality will not automatically qualify a person. Somebody who is seeking to obtain patriality and is going through the probation period of five years will be placed in a different position from an EEC worker who comes here, who registers once and for all and who is able to establish himself and his family here. That is a measure of discrimination—at least it is a distinction, it not discrimination.

Mr. Wilkinson: If an Indian from one State of the Indian Union is told that he is free to go to another State where a different language is spoken, that is comprehensible. It is equally comprehensible to him that someone from South Asia, outside the Indian Union, should not have the same rights as he has. That is what I was saying. That is a fair analogy.

Mr. Davis: Not only did I find the hon. Gentleman's first intervention incomprehensible, but I find this one difficult to follow. His intervention has not


assisted whatever case he has sought to make. I find it difficult to know what that case is.
There will be a distinction between the four groups of citizens. People going through the probationary period will have to undertake this rigmarole established by the Immigration Act, 1971. The other people will not have to undertake that rigmarole. They will not have to register. This will create resentment and distress. That is wrong. We must consider what proposed patrials have to go through to establish themselves here. They have to satisfy the authorities that they have sufficient knowledge of the English language. The EEC workers will not have to subscribe to that. The proposed patrials will have to satisfy the authorities that they are good citizens of good character; throughout this period they will be subject to the threat of deportation.
None of those matters affects the EEC worker who comes into this country.

A clear case of discrimination is likely to be established here. We have this absurd situation. We must bear in mind that many of the people who will be affected fought for this country in the last war and are to be treated less favourably than some people who fought against us. That is an absurd situation. We create three or four classes of citizens. We create aliens, Commonwealth citizens who are non-patrial, Commonwealth citizens who are patrial, and citizens of EEC member States.

Commonwealth immigrants to the United Kingdom will feel themselves to be even more inferior than they do now. It is a pathetic and humiliating situation. It is a situation which no worthy Government should willingly embrace.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 173, Noes 227.

Division No. 151.]
AYES
[2.24 a.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ellis, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
English, Michael
Loughlin, Charles


Armstrong, Ernest
Ewing, Henry
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Atkinson, Norman
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McBride, Neil


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCartney, Hugh


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Foot, Michael
McElhone, Frank


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mackie, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Golding, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Biffen, John
Gourlay, Harry
McNamara, J. Kevin


Body, Richard
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Booth, Albert
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marks, Kenneth


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marsden, F.


Buchan, Norman
Hamling, William
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hardy, Peter
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Mayhew, Christopher


Cant, R. B.
Harper, Joseph
Meacher, Michael


Carmichael, Neil
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mendelson, John


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Horam, John
Mikardo, Ian


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Millan, Bruce


Cohen, Stanley
Huckfield, Leslie
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Milne, Edward


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Molloy, William


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hunter, Adam
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Greville
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Moyle, Roland


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
John, Brynmor
Murray, Ronald King


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oakes, Gordon


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Ogden, Eric


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
O'Halloran, Michael


Dempsey, James
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Orme, Stanley


Doig, Peter
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Oswald, Thomas


Dormand, J. D.
Kaufman, Gerald
Paget, R. T.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kerr, Russell
Palmer, Arthur


Driberg, Tom
Kinnock, Neil
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lambie, David
Pavitt, Laurie


Dunn, James A.
Lamond, James
Pentland, Norman


Dunnett, Jack
Latham, Arthur
Perry, Ernest G.


Eadie, Alex
Leadbitter, Ted
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, William (Rugby)




Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Spearing, Nigel
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stallard, A. W.
Wallace, George


Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Watkins, David


Roper, John
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wellbeloved, James


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Rowlands, Edward
Swain, Thomas
White, James (Glasgow, Pollock)


Sandelson, Neville
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Whitehead, Phillip


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Whitlock, William


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Tinn, James
Woof, Robert


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Torney, Tom



Sillars, James
Tuck, Raphael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Skinner, Dennis
Varley, Eric G.
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Small, William
Wainwright, Edwin
Mr. Tom Pendry.


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Miscampbell, Norman


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gray, Hamish
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Green, Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Astor, John
Grieve, Percy
Money, Ernle


Atkins, Humphrey
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Grylls, Michael
Monro, Hector


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Gummer, J. Selwyn
More, Jasper


Batsford, Brian
Gurden, Harold
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Morrison, Charles


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mudd, David


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Murton, Oscar


Biggs-Davison, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey


Blaker, Peter
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Normanton, Tom


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nott, John


Boscawen, Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Cranley


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John


Bowden, Andrew
Havers, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Bray, Ronald
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Heseltine, Michael
Parkinson, Cecil


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hicks, Robert
Pike, Miss Meryn


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hiley, Joseph
Pink, R. Bonner


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N &amp; M)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Buck, Antony
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Holland, Philip
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Carlisle, Mark
Holt, Miss Mary
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hornby, Richard
Raison, Timothy


Chapman, Sydney

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Churchill, W. S.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Redmond, Robert


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Clegg, Walter
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cockeram, Eric
Hunt, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cooke, Robert
James, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Coombs, Derek
Jessel, Toby
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Cooper, A. E.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cormack, Patrick
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Rost, Peter


Critchley, Julian
Kimball, Marcus
Russell, Sir Ronald


Crouch, David
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kinsey, J. R.
Scott, Nicholas


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kirk, Peter
Sharples, Richard


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Kitson, Timothy
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Knox, David
Simeons, Charles


Dixon, Piers
Lane, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Le Merchant, Spencer
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Soref, Harold


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Speed, Keith


Eyre, Reginald
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Spence, John


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Loveridge, John
Sproat, Iain


Fidler, Michael
Luce, R. N.
Stainton, Keith


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
MacArthur, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McCrindle, R. A.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fortescue, Tim
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Foster, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stokes, John


Fowler, Norman
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gardner, Edward
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gibson-Watt, David
Madel, David
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maude, Angus
Tebbitt, Norman


Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray
Temple, John M.


Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Gorst, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Gower, Raymond
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)







Tilney, John
Ward, Dame Irene
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Trew, Peter
Warren, Kenneth
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Tugendhat, Christopher
Weatherill, Bernard
Woodnutt, Mark


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Worsley, Marcus


Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
White, Roger (Gravesend)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Waddington, David
Wiggin, Jerry



Walder, David (Ciltheroe)
Wilkinson, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Michael Jopling and


Wall, Patrick
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Mr. Marcus Fox.


Walters, Dennis

Question accordingly negatived.

The Second Deputy Chairman: The next Amendment is No. 136.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order. Mr. Mallalieu, I raised earlier in the debate a matter of fact which gave rise to an exchange between my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and the Solicitor-General, who said that later in the debate he would comment on that matter. As it has a bearing on the Amendment which is about to be moved, may I ask the Solicitor-General to say when he intends to make a statement, so that hon. Members who are interested will be able to hear what he has to say?

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is more a matter for private arrangement than a point of order.

Mr. Powell: I beg to move Amendment No. 136, in page 2, line 25, leave out 'from time to time'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this Amendment it will be convenient to take the following Amendments:

No. 244, in page 2, line 26, after 'Treaties', insert
'described in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act which were in force in the Communities on 22nd January 1972 and which are listed in Schedule to this Act'.

No. 137, in line 26, leave out 'from time to time'.

No. 246, in line 27, after 'the', insert 'foregoing'.

No. 247, in line 28, after 'the', insert 'said'.

No. 248, in line 28, after 'Treaties', insert:
'together with the Treaty of Accession signed at Brussels on 22nd January, 1972, and the associated decision of the Council of the European Communities relating to the accession of the United Kingdom to the European Coal and Steel Community'.

No. 249, in line 28, leave out 'without further enactment to be' and insert:
'directly to be applied and'.

No. 138, in line 30, leave out 'accordingly'.

No. 250, in line 31, leave out 'enforceable' and insert 'directly applicable'.

No. 208, in line 31, leave out from 'right' to end of line 33 and insert:
'means a right enforceable by any Community Institution in respect of—
(a) any Treaty or treaty, their protocols or annexes or other international agreements defined as such in this section and in Schedule 1 to this Act;
(b) regulations, directives, or decisions of Community Institutions made prior to 22nd January, 1972; and
(c) regulations, directives or decisions of Community Institutions enforceable in respect of the Treaty of Accession signed at Brussels on 22nd January, 1972'.

No. 140, in line 33, at end insert:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies or procedures created, arising or provided for after the entry date.

No. 251, in line 33, at end insert:
(2) All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions, and all remedies and procedures, created or arising by or under the Treaties after 2nd January, 1972, as in accordance with the Treaties are directly to be applied and given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom shall be recognised and available in law and be enforced, allowed and followed as provided by Act of Parliament from time to time.

Mr. Powell: The Amendment has to be taken in connection with Amendment No. 140, which is the operative Amendment for my purpose, and also with Amendment No. 143, in page 3, line 2 leave out from 'rights' to end of line 4. Amendment No. 143 on the provisional selection is grouped with the Amendments of which the Committee has disposed, but it will be within the recollection of some members of the Committee that at the commencement of the proceedings the Chairman of Ways and Means indicated—logically, if I may say so with respect—that Amendment No. 143 also belonged in this context as it is consequential.
The purpose of the Amendments is a simple one. They draw a line between


directly applicable Community legislation enacted by the Community before the entry of this country, if it takes place, and directly applicable Community legislation which is made afterwards. The effect of the Amendments would be that the procedure of Clause 2(1) would apply only to the directly applicable legislation which was already in existence at the moment of presumed entry on 1st January next year. For all subsequent directly applicable Community law it would be necessary to make provision in other ways, for example under the procedure of Clause 2(2).
For the purpose of the Bill there is an obvious distinction between Community law which is in existence before this country joins and that which comes into existence during the subsequent and illimitable future. With due regard to the complaints so persistently and justly voiced by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), we should within a measurable time of 1st January have in authenticated texts the ipsissima verba of present Community law, so that we can hardly say that we are totally ignorant of what we are introducing automatically by the procedure of subsection (1) into the law of this country. But, of course, that cannot, by definition, be true of Community law to be made in the future: we are by the Clause automatically admitting it to the law of this country, but we are doing so without any possibility of knowing what it is to be other than that it falls within the outer limits of the treaties. It is an almost shameful activity for the House of Commons—to enact without any parliamentary procedure whatsoever law of which it can have no knowledge. I think, therefore, that it will be conceded that there is a drastic distinction between pre-entry and post-entry law and that very different considerations apply to the use of Clause 2(1) for the former and for the latter class.
There is a sense in which the debate upon these Amendments and the others grouped with them, particularly Amendment No. 249, brings us back to the ground traversed in the previous major debate of this day's sitting, I think it will not be only those on one side of the Commitee who have remained unconvinced by the answer obtained from my

hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General on two points. The first is the minor point relating to Community decisions. Since my hon. and learned Friend spoke, I have again considered, in the light of what he said, the wording of Article 189, and it still appears to me that the wording used to describe decisions is not only different but clearly deliberately different from that which includes the words "directly applicable" and is used to describe the regulations of the Community. With great respect to my hon. and learned Friend, therefore, I cannot believe that, in the law of the Community and the interpretation of the treaty, regulations and decisions are on all-fours or that decisions are in the same sense as regulations directly applicable, whatever "directly applicable" may mean.
But that, of course, was always the minor issue. The major issue was whether "directly applicable" was the equivalent of the now celebrated words in the Clause "without further enactment". There again, I am not merely unconvinced upon the construction of Article 189; I am prevented, even if I might otherwise have been convinced, by the actual expressions which fell from my hon. and learned Friend when replying to that debate. When challenged by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) on the ruling of the Chair which covers all these debates, he said that an Amendment would be out of order if it required amendment of the treaty. He quite distinctly and advisedly used those words.
It therefore follows that the previous Amendments, and, indeed, Amendment No. 249 and this Amendment, do not require Amendment of the treaty. From that in turn it follows that the treaty, and in particular Article 189, does not require the form of enactment of directly applicable Community law which we find in subsection (1); and that we are therefore free to propose alternative ways in which some or all of the directly applicable law of the Community shall be rendered part of the law of this country.
Since the preceding debate, I have had the opportunity to refresh my memory as to what was said on this subject by what I suppose must be regarded as the principal witness and source of enlightenment on the subject, my right hon. Friend


the Prime Minister. Despite the earliness of the hour, I would like to trouble the Committee with the exact words my right hon. Friend used on 17th February, because they are clearly related to subsection (1) in so many words, and they clearly make the opposite point to that which my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was sustaining. The Prime Minister said:
What we have done in this Bill, in Clause 2(1), is to make that effective.
That is a reference to
a certain amount of Community law
which
will become automatically applicable.
2.45 a.m.
So it is clear that my right hon. Friend was talking about the same subject as the Committee has been discussing in the present sitting. He was talking about directly applicable Community law and about Clause 2(1). He said:
What we have done in this Bill, in Clause 2(1), is to make that
—the automatically applicable Community law—
effective.
Then he went on to make the following remark:
There have been various suggestions on how this should be handled. One suggestion is that the whole of the legislation which might be affected by any of the instruments should be re-enacted by Parliament".
That was a rather stronger form of alternative method than those which have been proposed in several different ways during this sitting, to proceed, for example, by way of Statutory Instrument or various forms of approval of draft Instruments.
Of the many suggested alternative ways in which directly applicable Community law could be handled, my right hon. Friend took the proposal that the whole of the legislation affected could be re-enacted by Parliament. He proceeded to shoot this down, not by saying that it had to be Clause 2(1) or nothing, nor by saying that the words "directly applicable" in Article 189 mean exactly the same as "without further enactment". My right hon. Friend's speech would have been absolute nonsense, and he would have been wasting his breath, if the treaty had required direct application "without further enactment". But he clearly did

not think that "without further enactment" was the meaning of the words in the treaty. So he produced a different line of argument, objecting that:
This would have the effect that whole of the legislation on each of these subjects could then be amended and dealt with again; but the one part which could not be dealt with would be the new part which comes in the Community law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1972, Vol. 831, cc. 747–8.]
My right hon. Friend was perfectly correct: the directly applicable Community law could not be amended without breach of the treaty in the form in which it was re-enacted. But what my right hon. Friend stated clearly is that we could fulfil the requirements of the treaty by legislative enactment. Unless, therefore, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister himself misconceived the treaty and the Bill, we are free to propose an alternative method of "handling"—to use my right hon. Friend's term—to bring into the law of this country some or all of the directly applicable Community law.
In this Amendment I am proposing that we should adopt such an alternative method for future, or post-entry, Community law: since at this stage we can have no information of what it is, it will need to be brought before Parliament from time to time, in due course, under subsection (2). Thus, post-entry Community law will be made known to the House, and laid before the House, so that it can be explained, and so that it becomes part of the law of this country in orderly manner.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Norman Wylie): The difficulty about this is that no one can guarantee that Parliament would enact that subsequent legislation, and if it did not do so it would result in a breach of treaty obligations, and for that reason we have to envisage ab ante that consent to Community law would fall.

Mr. Powell: My right hon. and learned Friend did not have the advantage of following the relevant parts of the earlier debate. Otherwise he would have heard it pointed out that the same argument applies to Clause 2(2): the House of Commons, presented with a statutory instrument under Clause 2(2), can throw it out. It is true that it can be brought in again, and in a slightly


altered form. It is true that the argument for the different procedures in subsections (1) and (2) is that subsection (2) applies to the implementation of directives, where we have choice of method. But that does not help my hon. and learned Friend, because he is still faced under Clause 2(2)—or wherever we proceed by regulation in implementing Community law—with the fact that this House in theory can throw it out, and that the Government are obliged to say to this House that it has the power to negative the Statutory Instrument but that they must warn that, if it does so, it will be in breach of the treaty.
That is what will be said over and over again whenever regulations are presented under Clause 2(2); and if it is to be said for regulations under Clause 2(2), it might as well be said for regulations which embody into the law of this country the directly applicable law of which at present we have no knowledge because it is to be made in future.
We have a choice as to way in which we will enact post-entry Community law. We can do it blind, now, in advance. But we do not need to do this: we can do it in other ways. By the adoption of this Amendment we shall ensure that it is done in other ways, notably by means of Statutory Instrument. Therefore, I hope that once again those who take different views on the general question of Britain and the Community will help to establish the point that there is a certain—I was about to use the word "impropriety", but that is too weak—obscenity in this House legislating blind for the future, especially as we are not under any obligation to do so. I hope that by adopting this Amendment we shall show ourselves sensitive to the requirements of parliamentary decency.

Sir Elwyn Jones: As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has pointed out, these Amendments link with our earlier discussion of the provisions of Clause 2(1) in relation to directly applicable laws of the Community. I use the language of Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome and not the language that the Government have imported into subsection (1), the phrase "without further enactment". I shall be making some observations about that when we deal with Amendment

No. 249, which raises expressly the implications of that imported phraseology.
In adopting the method used in Clause 2(1) to incorporate the existing self-executing Community law into our own law, the Government have sought to justify their draconian lock, stock and barrel approach on the ground that it is the most expedient and shortest way of dealing with the problem. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is certainly not the only way that the Government had of dealing with the problem. They were not obliged to do it in that way, and I understood from the Chancellor of the Duchy earlier that this was now conceded.
Whatever else may be said about the 1967 White Paper—it is constantly thrown at the Opposition—the previous Administration never contemplated this shotgun method of dealing with the problem of incorporating treaty law into our law. The treaty rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions could have been made explicit in the terms of the Bill. Indeed, they should have been made explicit. Each right, power, liability, obligation and restriction should have been identified. At the very least, each should have been published. However, that was not done. The liabilities and the rest of those factors should have been set out in the context of any existing law which they effect and articulated to the relevant existing law of this country. That has not been done. Admittedly, it would have been a lengthy job.
The previous Administration contemplated, as the White Paper put it—this is rarely quoted—that a substantial body of legislation would be required to enable us to accept the Community law. That would have been a way to enable Parliament and the people of this country to know what the implications and consequences of the Bill were.
As it is, we have had the remarkable experience of having to wait until tonight in the Solicitor-General's speech to get the first attempt even at definition of the separate rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions. The hon. and learned Gentleman hardly attempted more than a definition. Yet surely the situation cries out for a detailed setting out of the rights, powers, and particularly the liabilities, obligations and restrictions.
What has been done in the draft of this Bill is all too slick and wholly unsatisfactory from the point of view of Parliament and the public. Whatever virtue may attach to the argument of brevity and of expediency concerning pre-accession Community legislation, those defences cannot begin to justify what is proposed for the, as yet, unknown and unknowable post-accession and future Community law. I submit that the provisions of the Bill shut out Parliament not only from detailed consideration of existing pre-accession obligations but from the new post-accession laws.
This group of Amendments, which my right hon. and hon. Friends support, seeks to remedy this unacceptable exclusion of Parliament. The key Amendment is No. 251, which provides that the rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions created by the post-accession treaties shall be recognised and allowed as provided by Act of Parliament from time to time. These Amendments seek to reinstate in some degree the authority of Parliament. All that the Government contemplate, by way of provision of a place for Parliament regarding future Community law which is to become part of our law, is some minor amendment of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.
3.0 a.m.
All that we have been offered by the Government is that the matter shall be considered by an ad hoc committee, and we were told by the right hon. and learned Gentleman today that it was to be merely a temporary advisory committee with no permanent status whatsoever. All that we have really had from the right hon. and learned Gentleman on this matter is an answer that he gave to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton). I am sorry that I do not have the reference, but it will no doubt be familiar to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He said that the whole question of procedure in dealing with treaties would be put in the terms of reference, as it were, of the ad hoc committee so that we could consider the most appropriate procedures: so that we could consider how we could ensure by our procedures that there was an opportunity for these matters to be considered here.
We are faced with the fact that the Government have made no attempt to

spell out what, in their opinion, those procedures ought to be. Apparently no attempt has been made by the Government to devise procedures to make certain that Parliament can deal effectively with this unprecedented problem. No attempt has been made to devise means by which Parliament can influence events at the Council or Commission at the stage of proposals or to give Parliament control over the articulation of new rights, obligations and the rest of it into our legal system.
In our view, either the Government should have spelled out the appropriate procedures and given them statutory force by express provision in the Bill, or they should have undertaken to provide for a follow-up Communities scrutiny Bill creating and establishing such procedures.
As more than one hon. Member has said today, the kind of arrangement that has been made in Germany to deal with these matters is infinitely better than anything that has been suggested by the Government. In so far as Community institutions are empowered to make regulations taking effect directly, we should at least require machinery to ensure that Parliament is apprised by a requirement similar to that in the German legislation on accession to the EEC, under which the Federal Government must keep the Bundestag continuously informed of developments in the Council of Ministers about Community decisions requiring changes in the law.
The German legislature has also given a useful guide, as we have heard more than once, by providing that where decisions by the Council of Ministers call for automatic legal changes the Bundestag should be informed of this before the Council takes a decision. That means that the specialised legislative committees of the Bundestag can in those cases comment on what is proposed and affect and influence the decision.
The system of presentation to Parliament of Brussels draft regulations would at least enable Parliament to influence a decision within the Council of Ministers before a Brussels decree became mandatory. It is interesting to note that our domestic legislation has examples of preliminary draft regulations having to be subjected to prior consideration before a final draft is submitted to Parliament


for approval. For instance, before making any regulations under the National Insurance Act, 1965 or laying a draft of such regulations before Parliament, the Minister must submit to the National Insurance Advisory Committee a preliminary draft, so that in that purely domestic field there is statutory provision for that kind of machinery.
In our view the great merit of Amendment No. 251 is that it makes sure that Parliament will always be able to reassert its over-riding power if it so wishes. The machinery of subsection (3), which enables Parliament to reject an Order specifying a new treaty entered into by the United Kingdom after 22nd January, 1972, to be a Community treaty, is something that we deem to be wholly insufficient. We know the limitation of such parliamentary procedures, both as to their brevity and as to the form of the ensuing debates on that sort of order.
I wish to emphasise that we shall not be dealing in this context with mere trivia because future treaties and agreements may go far beyond the sphere of tariffs, customs duties and common marketing. They may give effect, for example, to the wider political aspirations of some Community members and some Ministers for progressive advance towards the political unification of this country with those countries of Western Europe which belong to the EEC. It is therefore vitally important that the future should be safeguarded for Parliament to have an effective rôle.
Future decisions of the Community may involve changes in our statute law. If so, it is essential, if only for the avoidance of doubt, that such changes are carried through by new Acts of Parliament based on the same legislative process as created the very statutes which Community law requires to be changed. This Measure should clearly spell that out or make provision for the necessary procedures to be stated in future Acts as the situation develops and new problems are created. Either the Government have not thought these things out or they have deliberately chosen this machinery to shackle and limit the powers of Parliament. In either case what is proposed just will not do.
Amendment No. 249 deals expressly with a point that achieved important

dimensions in the debate earlier; namely, the use of the words in Clause 2(1) "without further enactment." There is nothing in the Treaty of Rome to the effect that there should be no further enactment to apply directly enforceable Community law in this country. It is certainly not equivalent to translate and paraphrase "apply directly enforceable law" as "be given legal effect … to … without further enactment". Those words are the creation or concoction of the Government in their effort to justify this hatchet Clause and create some belief in the necessity of this, and I see a good deal of force in the argument of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West on this matter.
There are other means of achieving direct applicability without providing that it shall be done without further enactment. There is no reason in the world why measures which apply directly should not have been made part of the body of our law by enactment when that was deemed to be necessary. This justification of the Government is at the heart of their case, and I submit that there is no real justification for it.
In conclusion I submit that this pro-proposed change in our law, a change of so fundamental and far-reaching a character, should not have been dealt with in this way, and if the Committee in due course carries these Amendments it will bring out the salutary process of requiring the Government to think again and of at least taking, and having to take, Parliament seriously.

Mr. Rippon: Now that the main arguments in favour of this group of Amendments have been deployed perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if this matter were concluded shortly tomorrow when it might be more appropriate for my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General or myself to reply. In these circumstances, I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

TRANSPORT (FLOCKTON BYPASS)

3.12 a.m.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I am sorry at this appallingly late hour to delay the House still further and keep the Minister from his bed. But I shall be very brief on what is a very important matter to a large number of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Walter Harrison), and important for the flow of traffic in the whole of our area.
The road to which I refer is the A637 which connects the Huddersfield—Wakefield road, the A642, with the M1. It is a feeder road for the M1. At present it runs through the village of Flockton, and through parts of that village its width is as little as 18 ft. This has meant in the past that lorries passing each other have had to mount the pavement, they have knocked down walls and they have even knocked down parts of houses. This is still happening in spite of the fact that police patrols are operating more frequently and are trying to check speeds in spite of the introduction of "give way" signs and a limitation on the weight of lorries which can use the road. Unfortunately, that limitation is being steadily disregarded.
The only solution to the problem is to have a bypass for Flockton. I am not alone in holding this view. It is also the view of the Urban District Council of Kirkburton and the West Riding County Council. It is the view of the Borough Council of Huddersfield, and it is the view of other local authorities in the area that are also affected.
All these bodies, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and myself have been putting continuous pressure on this Administration and their predecessors to get some action. My file on the Flockton bypass is larger than any other file I have accumulated in the 27 years or so that I have been a Member.
It has not been only our view that there should be a bypass. It was the view of the previous Administration. As long ago as 31st March, 1970, the then Parliamentary Secretary wrote to me saying:

You will be pleased to know that a proposal to improve A637, including a bypass at Flockton, has been included in our list of inter-urban principal road schemes to be put into operation.
It is also the view of the present Government, because in a letter of 9th September, 1971, one of the Under-secretaries wrote:
During the examination of the very detailed report which was presented by the country surveyor we reached the conclusion that this bypass"—
the one I am suggesting—
and the neighbouring one at West Bretton taken together would not only provide relief for these two villages but could also have a very significant effect on the existing and proposed road network to the south and west of the Leeds conurbation.
That looked hopeful, but on 10th January I received another letter from the then Under-Secretary in which he said:
I know this proposal for by-passing Flockton seems to have been dragging on and on with nothing much apparently happening, but we really were beset with problems because of its possible effects on the rest of the road network south and west of Leeds.
But in his previous letter of 9th September he had added to the passage I have already read:
Investigation of the full implications of this is not yet complete, but in order to minimise the effect on the Flockton bypass scheme a further study we have over the past few weeks been able, in collaboration with the county surveyor, to produce ideas for the design of the Flockton bypass which would fit in with any of the conclusions likely to result from our studies.
The detailed, costed scheme has been drawn up. It has been passed through the Minister's local office in Leeds, and it has been in his hands for some time. Yet when the Secretary of State announced his further road development schemes in March it was not included.
I am raising this matter again, therefore, to find out from the Under-Secretary what on earth the Government's intentions are, and what is happening to the scheme. It will fit in with any other schemes in the area, the Under-Secretary has told me. There seems to me to be no possible excuse for not proceeding. The plans are drawn and agreed. We are ready to go. For goodness' sake, do not let us delay any longer until the point comes when children and grown ups are killed on this dangerous road. Will the Under-Secretary please give us the green light tonight?

3.19 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Evironment (Mr. Keith Speed): I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) for his helpful and constructive speech on an issue about which I know he feels strongly and in which he has taken a close interest. He can claim some credit for pressing the previous Administration to put this scheme in the principal road preparation list. The hon. Gentleman had an Adjournment debate on a similar subject on 17th February, 1970. Two years and more have passed, and I can understand his annoyance and that of his constituents that apparently no progress is being made.
The proposed Flockton bypass and its continuation as a bypass of the neighbouring village of Bretton are both principal road schemes and, therefore, the direct responsibility of the local highway authority, which is the West Riding County Council. However, as hon. Members will know, 75 per cent. of the expenditure on improvements of principal roads is covered by a grant from central Government. Therefore, my Department takes a close interest in the plans of local authorities for principal road improvements. Principal roads also tend to be mainly in urban areas, and present Administration, like the previous one, have been much concerned with the contribution to the local enviroment that improvement schemes on these roads can bring. I have in mind in particular the relief that bypass and inner relief road schemes provide for town and shopping centres.
The Department has recently carried out a very significant exercise with local highway authorities to draw up a list of principal road schemes to be put into detailed preparation for construction towards the end of this decade. As a result of that exercise, my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development was able to announce just before Easter our agreement to allow the planning of local authority principal road schemes likely to cost £600 million. We selected these schemes not only for their direct economic value, which is important, but also because in general they concentrated traffic and so relieved residential roads, were likely to free towns and villages from intrusion by

heavy traffic, removed bottlenecks and improved routes.
Having given the general background, it will be helpful if I turn to the Flockton bypass scheme. This was included in March, 1970, in the principal road preparation list for detailed planning because it offered the prospect of some of the advantages I have outlined in the principal road schemes. The need for the bypass—and I stress this—is acknowledged by the Department and is supported by the West Riding County Council.
Since 1970, as the hon. Member will know, the plans have been developed for both schemes, but they have had to be considered against other road proposals for the locality. This is what my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace was talking about when he exchanged correspondence with the hon. Gentleman. The most significant long-term development—this is the inhibiting factor at the moment—is likely to be the proposed new major route to connect the industrial areas south of Leeds to the North-East.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware of this proposal. Many of them have been at pains on many occasions to stress the contribution which such a new route could make to the industrial prosperity of the area, with its prospect of an improved connection for towns like Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Batley and Bradford as well as Leeds from the existing M1 south of Leeds across the M62 and up to the A1 towards Teesside and Tyneside. This will be an extremely important road for the whole of the West Riding and North and North-East England. They have also pointed out the need for an early decision on the corridor for the route, not only to bring the benefits we all expect but also to end the planning uncertainties which the prospect of such a route often brings.
A major report on the proposed south of Leeds to the North-East route was prepared for the Department in 1970 by the county surveyor of the West Riding. The recommendations in this report have been considered and have led to further studies, particularly on the implications for the southern end of the route, which is relevant to consideration of the Flock ton bypass. On the major route, we are now consulting the local and other


statutory authorities whose views we must take into account. The interests of local people must be carefully considered because other hon. Members have already made representations about the effect on the environment and property that such a major road could have. Also, time must be allowed for authorities to weigh the issues and reach conclusions. Consequently, we must balance all the views expressed.
This main route, whatever line is adopted, could well have an effect upon areas of natural beauty. This is an added factor, and possibly one which will cause delay.
Having said all this, it is apparent that one could go on talking about the delays, but this would not help the hon. Gentleman and it certainly would not help his constituents. I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman—I have been pressing very firmly on this—that on present information it seems likely that a decision on the major scheme and, if it is to be planned, on the corridor for the major route should be made by August or September of this year.

Mr. Mallalieu: I understood from one of the Minister's colleague's that, whatever the major scheme turned out to be, the Flockton bypass was now in such a state that it would fit in with whatever scheme was adopted.

Mr. Speed: I am coming to that aspect. That is nearly, but not quite, the position.
I should emphasise that when this decision is taken in August or September of this year—obviously, I hope that it is sooner rather than later—we might merely be including a scheme in the trunk road preparation pool for further planning. The scheme would then exist only as a preferred corridor, and the detailed alignment of the road itself would still need to be worked out. As the planning progressed, draft orders would be published which could be discussed locally, any objections considered, and, if necessary, a full public inquiry instituted. That is normal procedure.
I am sure that the natural reaction of the hon. Member and many of those living in Flockton and Bretton will be "We have been waiting for a long time. Must we go on waiting?" I have tried to explain the position. Officials in my Department are in touch with the county

council and have recently met representatives of the local action committee which is pressing for the two bypasses. I hope that as a result it is clear that there is no dispute about the need for relief to the two villages on the A.637. The existing bypass schemes together would cost over £1·5 million, of which three-quarters would come from central Government funds.
It could be—we shall know in August or September; this is where there may have been some confusion—that the proposed south of Leeds to the North-East route would effectively relieve both Flockton and Bretton of through traffic in a different form from that proposed in the bypass schemes, or that the bypasses could be related to, or be part of, the major scheme. These issues should soon be resolved, and then the natural frustration of the hon. Member and his constituents at the apparent lack of decision will be lifted.
I am instructed that work is still going ahead on the preparation of the bypass schemes. When the decision is taken in August or September, if the decision is to press ahead with the A637 bypass schemes as we understand them at the moment there will be no delay on the part of my Department in allowing the West Riding County Council which will be the authority concerned, to press ahead. It may be, on the other hand, that the decision will go the other way and that sufficient relief will be given by this major scheme that we are talking about so that effectively both these villages and other areas would be relieved. If that is so—I cannot put a firm date on this—the relief for the hon. Gentleman's constituents will take a little longer to achieve but perhaps may be more effective than that which would be achieved if we were to press straight ahead with the principal bypass scheme.
Either way, I give the firm assurance that a decision will be taken in August or September which will effectively dispel all the doubts, and one way or the other the hon. Gentleman and his constituents will know where they stand, either by way of relief from the major road from the south of Leeds, which would be built to a very high standard and would have all the links and interchanges with other major roads, or by our pressing ahead with the £1½ million scheme. I give the


assurance that the Department will in no way hold this up. If it is decided to go ahead with the existing bypass scheme, I am sure that the West Riding County Council will give it maximum priority because we know its views as well.
I hope the hon. Member can bear with us for another two or three months. I have tried to be as helpful as I can. He will agree that we must ensure that when public money is involved—and £1½ million is a considerable sum—that it must be spent in the right way. If we

could achieve the same result without spending this money on a major scheme, we would have to consider that matter carefully.
The result will be basically what the hon. Gentleman has sought in this useful, short debate. I agree that the sooner the Department takes the decision the better. I give an assurance that that will take place in the late summer.

Quetion put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Three o'clock a.m.